Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Stanislaw Burzynski, Stan R. Burzynski, Stan Burzynski, S. R. BURZYNSKI, S. Burzynski, Arthur Burzynski, Hippocrates Hypocrite Hypocrites Critic Critics Critical HipoCritical
—————————————————————— The American Medical Establishment
——————————————————————
The medical establishment of the United States is very undemocratic – to put it mildly
Now, this is a guy coming from Taiwan in 1984
Under Chiang Kai-shek, we still had martial law at that time
So, you cannot speak your mind, otherwise you would find yourself in jail, or in a very “hot position”
So, in a way, I came to this country for higher education, is because I was quite vocal against “KMT” (Kuomintang), or Chiang Kai-shek
My parents and other relatives, they had managerial positions, and they all had to be members of the party
So they don’t like me to speak too loud about anything against the party
So I said, “alright, I’ll go to the United States anyway”
So, I come here
I went to University of Kentucky to get my PhD
And then, after writing the report on Burzynski, I suddenly find myself: Gee, it’s a “kiss of death” to my professional career — because, look at JAMA
—————————————————————— Special Communication Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) – June 3, 1992
‘Antineoplastons’
An Unproven Cancer Therapy
Saul Green, PhD
—————————————————————— JAMA could print a comment criticizing Burzynski, and now I’m writing a report, a report saying that Antineoplaston has some merit to it, and you’ve got to look into it
—————————————————————— Evaluation of the Anticancer Activities of Antineoplastons and Related Compounds, Including Phenylacetate, Phenylacetylglutamine, 3-Phenylacetylamino-2, 6-piperidinedione and their respective Analogs
Li-Chuan Chin, Ph.D.
Office of Alternative Medicine
National Institutes of Health
October 24, 199?
——————————————————————
So halfway through writing the report, it suddenly dawned on me, that might be the end of my professional career, because they’re a bunch of academic professors, they wrote things ferociously bad
—————————————————————— Oncologists criticize methods used in researching cancer treatment
Published Thursday, October 1, 1998
——————————————————————
about Burzynski’sAntineoplastons, and I have evidence and a report to say: “Antineoplaston worth a second look”
How would they view me – professionally ?
And so I know in my heart that that’s the end of my professional career
—————————————————————— NCI: The National Cancer Institute NIH: The National Institutes of Health
——————————————————————
The National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health:
I found it’s a place full of people with ego of titanic proportions
You know, they are all like working for their career, working for their fame and rich
Sometimes their hearts are not there for the patients
They are more interested in their own benefit, and in the end, that’s what I realized
So, it was a disappointment
You know, they say, NIH is the mega medical center
But when you look back at the past 10, 20 years — very few Nobel Prize winner come out of NIH
And they got all the budget
They got all the money to do research
So even if you give me $1 million dollars to go back to NIH, I won’t
I won’t
I wouldn’t do anything against my conscience
—————————————————————— A two-party medical system ?
——————————————————————
So, eventually what I found out is that the culture is “split in two”
One is “orthodox”
The other one is “alternative”
You’ve got this “orthodox culture,” and then there’s a culture living around it
And it’s fascinating
Politically, it’s like, well, you have the dominant party, and they rule the country, and there are fringe groups and opposition parties here and there, you know
And if the authorities are not too harsh on them, sometimes they got a niche — they are surviving (laughing)
You know, it’s, in some ways to me, it’s very interesting cultural phenomenon
Yeah
And finding that in a democratic country like United States, and you
have this medical tyranny there
In tyrannies, or in authoritarian societies, a lot of the time, people would refrain from speaking the truth
Ok
The atmosphere is there to prevent you speaking your mind
Even if you see the truth
The scare tactic is enough to force a lot of people not to speak the truth within the medical field
If that fear is there, people will do things to avoid harm to their professional life, to their family life, to them personally
And it’ll perpetuate the fear for ever and ever
So it’s very difficult to delineate, say, “ahhh, it’s because of the health industry,” “it’s because of pharmaceutical companies,” the (?) of whatever
—————————————————————— Utilizing the two-party medical system
—————————————————————— What is your opinion, like if we wanna sort of get ourselves out of this mess?
——————————————————————
Well my opinion is this:
If I was President of a country I would split my health budget in research into two portions
One for the medical establishment
One for the alternative field
And I’d say, “in the end of the day,” or “in the end of the year, come and show me the result”
If you get better results than the other, then I’ll take the portion of budget out a little bit and put it into yours
Put into the winners
And if you continue to lose, you lose your budget
If there’s two-party system, like, in democracy, often time, let’s have two-party system in medicine, and let them run with the budget, and come back in the end and say: “Which cat catches the most mice”?
And this is what the general population wants
——————————————————————
Clip from the 2nd DVD of Burzynski Cancer Is Serious Business
2 DVD Extended Edition Set
7:44
——————————————————————
David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS “Check My Facts”Hack “Orac”, finally ends his 11/15/2013 diatribe of Dr. Burzynski by USA TODAY’sLiz Szabo, Michael Stravato, Jerry Mosemak, and Robert Hanashiro, with:
—————————————————————— “The concluding section of the story tells us why we need to try:”
“No one told Josia’s parents about any of this”
“Not Burzynski”
“Not the FDA”
“Jose and Niasia Cotto had no idea that their son’s death prompted an investigation by the FDA, until they were contacted by USA TODAY”
“The Cottos had long believed that Burzynski could have cured their son if only they had taken Josia to see him first, before giving him radiation and chemotherapy”
“They had even hoped to launch a non-profit, A Life for Josia Foundation, to help other children with cancer gain access to Burzynski’s treatment“
“Now, they don’t know what to think”
——————————————————————
So what good did Gorski do here, if any ?
1. He offers no opinion as to if he thinks Burzynski should have been responsible for advisingJose and Niasia Cotto that Josia Cotto’sdeath prompted an investigation by the FDA
2. He offers no opinion as to if he thinks the FDA should have been responsible for advisingJose and Niasia Cotto that Josia Cotto’sdeath prompted an investigation
3. He offers no opinion as to if he thinks Burzynski could have cured Jose and Niasia Cotto’s son, Josia Cotto’s if only they had been able to take Josia to Burzynski first
4. He offers no opinion as to what he thinks about the FDA requiring Josia Cotto to receive radiation and chemotherapy, and them failingJosia, before he was able to utilize antineoplaston therapy
Gorski might as well NOT even be here if all he’s going to do is repost the same thing USA TODAY published, yet “say” absolutely NOTHING
Personally, I think it’s has to do with what was said during the JulyTAM 2013 twaddle, when the female panelist made a comment about “people without BALLS”
——————————————————————
Since I have mine, here’s what I think:
1. If there was a moral or legal duty to advise Jose and Niasia Cotto that the passing of Josiaprompted an investigation by the FDA, then it was the FDA’s responsibility
2. I think that if the FDA was NOT requiring patients like Josia Cotto to 1st be failed by conventional treatments like surgery, radiation, and / or chemotherapy, there is a chance that Burzynski’santineoplaston therapy could be more effective because of:
======================================
What USA TODAY, Liz Szabo, Michael Stravato, Jerry Mosemak, and Robert HanashiroDID NOT TELL YOU ABOUT:
—————————————————————— 12/2002 Burzynski interview [3]
—————————————————————— INTRAVENOUS
—————————————————————— 1. Treatment require strong commitment from patients as must be infused with Antineoplastons for many weeks or months ?
—————————————————————— 2. Perhaps 15% of patients taking intravenous infusions of Antineoplastons
—————————————————————— 3. Patients who have most advanced type of cancer will require heavy dosages
—————————————————————— 4. When give large dosages intravenously, have to watch fluid balance…and electrolyte balance
—————————————————————— 5. Intravenous infusion can deliver equivalent of 3,000 tablets a day
—————————————————————— ORAL – CAPSULES OR TABLETS
—————————————————————— 1. Most patients taking oral formulations
—————————————————————— 2. Capsules or tablets
—————————————————————— 3. Limitation of how much medicine can take by mouth
—————————————————————— 4. 50 or 60 tablets a day pretty much all you can take by mouth
—————————————————————— 5. When give orally, see practically no side effects at all
—————————————————————— 6. Patients may develop skin rash, which may last for day or two
—————————————————————— 7. Don’t see any delayed toxicity once treatment stops
—————————————————————— 8. Everything practically goes back to normal within day or two
—————————————————————— 9. Doesn’t even come close to adverse reactions that experience with chemotherapy
—————————————————————— FDA requirements
—————————————————————— 1. Most patients who come to us have received prior heavy radiation therapy, or chemotherapy
—————————————————————— 2. Usually die from complications from these treatments
—————————————————————— 3. Those who survive longest are patients who previously did not receive radiation therapy or chemotherapy
—————————————————————— 4. Longest survivor in this category is now reaching 15 years from time of diagnosis; and she’s in perfect health
—————————————————————— 12/10/1997 [4]
—————————————————————— 1. In addition to original family of Antineoplaston compounds
(the “Parental Generation”)
—————————————————————— 2. Development of 2nd generation of Antineoplastons
In cell culture experiments 2nd generation Antineoplastons developed have been shown to be at least
Thousand times more potent then Parental Generation
—————————————————————— 3. 3rd generation structurally altered Antineoplaston believe will exhibit markedly improved anticancer activity in human cancer cell lines resistant to
Parental Generation
————————————————————— 12/2000 Egypt antineoplaston study [5]
—————————————————————— 4 newpiperidinedioneA10 analogssynthesized and tested on human breast cancer cell line against prototype A10 and anti cancer drug tamoxifen and DNA binding capacity of compounds evaluated against A10
—————————————————————— “3B” and “3D” were several-fold more potent antiproliferative agents than A10 and tamoxifen and had significantly higher capacity to bind DNA than A10
————————————————————— 10/1/2001 Egypt antineoplaston study [5]
—————————————————————— Structural characterization of new antineoplaston (ANP) representatives
——————————————————————
Combination heat with pH modification had virtually no effect on obtained peaks, attesting to stability and purity of compounds
—————————————————————— One had superior affinity to DNA than
prototype ANP-A10
======================================
So, what do we know from this interview with Burzynskifrom over a decade ago, his 12/10/1997 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing and the antineoplaston research from Egypt ?
—————————————————————— 1. Oral (capsule and tablets): PRACTICALLY NO SIDE EFFECTS at all
—————————————————————— 2. Those who survive longest are patients who previously did NOT receive radiation therapy or chemotherapy
—————————————————————— 3. 2nd generation of Antineoplastons have been shown to be at least a THOUSAND TIMES MORE POTENT then Parental Generation
—————————————————————— 4. 3rd generation structurally altered Antineoplaston believe will exhibit markedly improved anticancer activity in human cancer cell lines resistant to Parental Generation
—————————————————————— 5. The research from Egypt shows promising results for binding to DNA
——————————————————————
I doubt Dr. Gorski will be blogging about the above, anytime soon, as it
DOES NOT FIT HIS NARRATIVE
====================================== 2000 – Thomas Navarro [3]
——————————————————————
What happened to Donna and Jim Navarro when they chose Burzynski’streatment over orthodox treatments ?
—————————————————————— 4 year oldThomas Navarrodiagnosed with medulloblastoma
—————————————————————— Operated on
—————————————————————— Tumor removed
—————————————————————— Scheduled for radiation therapy
—————————————————————— Parents knew he’d be damaged by radiation therapy
——————————————————————
Nobody his age survives this type of tumor anyway after radiation therapy
——————————————————————
Why they decided to go to Burzynski Clinic
—————————————————————— Could NOT treat him because FDA requires failure of radiation therapy for such patients
—————————————————————— Parents decided NOT to take any treatment
—————————————————————— Burzynski asked FDA several times to allow administration of Antineoplastons, because already had successful treatments for some other children without any prior radiation
—————————————————————— 5/2001 – developed numerous tumors
—————————————————————— Burzynski suggested to parents they should go for at least chemotherapy
——————————————————————
Went for chemotherapy to one of best centers in the country, Beth Israel Hospital in New York
—————————————————————— Chemotherapy was successful, but he almost died from it
—————————————————————— Severly affected his bone marrow
——————————————————————
Phone call from Thomas’s father telling Burzynski doctors thinking they won’t do anything else for him and Thomas will die within a week because of severe suppression of bone marrow
—————————————————————— Burzynski encouraged father to do whatever possible because such patients may turn around
—————————————————————— He turned around
——————————————————————
About month or two later developed 15 tumors in brain and spinal cord
——————————————————————
When close to death, nothing available, FDA called and allowed Burzynski to treat Thomas
—————————————————————— Treated Thomas
—————————————————————— Survived 6 months
—————————————————————— Tumors had substantially decreased
—————————————————————— 11/2001 – ultimately died from pneumonia
——————————————————————
Perhaps professor and chairman of oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Jan Buckner, professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, Arthur Caplan, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer, pediatric oncologist and professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Peter Adamson, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS, a/k/a GorskGeek, and “Orac”, ALL think that the 15 tumors Thomas Navarro had in his brain and spinal cord, which had substantially decreased under Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy, were because of Pseudoprogression a/k/a Pseudo-Progression (psPD) and / or pseudoresponse, caused by chemotherapy ?
Is this what they mean by:
“In reality, the tumor was just returning to its previous size” ?
====================================== Dustin Kunnari [3]
——————————————————————
At 2 ½ years old, Dustin Kunnari had brain surgery
—————————————————————— Surgery removed only 75% of tumor
——————————————————————
Dustin’s parents, Mariann and Jack, were told Dustinwould only live 6 months
——————————————————————
Chemotherapy and radiation may extend life slightly, but at very high cost in quality of life with very serious side effects
——————————————————————
Mariann and Jack decided to look into alternatives
——————————————————————
Found out about Antineoplastons
——————————————————————
After only 6 weeks of intravenous treatment, MRI showed he was cancer free
—————————————————————— One year later another tumor appeared on MRI
——————————————————————
By this time Dr. Burzynski had developed more concentrated form of Antineoplastons
—————————————————————— After 5 months tumor was gone
——————————————————————
remained cancer free ever since
—————————————————————— Age 7 – taken off Antineoplastons
——————————————————————
To further complicate matters, oncologist kept threatening parents with a court proceeding to take Dustin away and force him to take Chemotherapy/Radiation treatment
——————————————————————
This continued for a year, even after success with Antineoplastons
—————————————————————— Age 12 at time of 12/2002 interview
——————————————————————
Perhaps professor and chairman of oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Jan Buckner, professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, Arthur Caplan, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer, pediatric oncologist and professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Peter Adamson, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS, a/k/a GorskGeek, and “Orac”, ALL think that the tumor David Kunnari had, which disappeared under Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy, were because of Pseudoprogression a/k/a Pseudo-Progression (psPD) and / or pseudoresponse, caused by surgery ?
Is this what they mean by:
“In reality, the tumor was just returning to its previous size” ?
====================================== Paul Leverett [3]
—————————————————————— 5/1999 – diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme grade 4 brain stem tumor
—————————————————————— Prognosis was would probably be dead before end of 1999
——————————————————————
Orthodox medicine gave him no hope of survival
—————————————————————— Given maximum amount of radiation was capable of receiving
——————————————————————
Slowed tumors growth slightly, but didn’t alter prospects for survival at all
——————————————————————
After research on Internet learned about Dr. Burzynski’sAntineoplastons
—————————————————————— 9/1999 – began taking Antineoplastons intravenously, administered by wife Jennie
——————————————————————
After 6 weeks tumor had grown by only 2 %, Glioblastoma’s normally double in size every 2 weeks
—————————————————————— 12/2000 – PET scan confirmed complete remission
——————————————————————
Stayed on Antineoplastonsuntil 8/2001 to ensure tumor wouldn’t reoccur
——————————————————————
Just under 20% tumor necrosis remaining in brain stem, which is probably scar tissue
——————————————————————
Oncologist (at MD Anderson, Houston) initially wanted to show scan’s to his hospitals (MD Anderson) tumor review board
——————————————————————
for whaever reason, refused further contact and didn’t go ahead with it
——————————————————————
Perhaps professor and chairman of oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Jan Buckner, professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, Arthur Caplan, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer, pediatric oncologist and professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Peter Adamson, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS, a/k/a GorskGeek, and “Orac”, ALL think that the glioblastoma multiforme grade 4 brain stem tumor Paul Leverett had, which disappeared under Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy, were because of Pseudoprogression a/k/a Pseudo-Progression (psPD) and / or pseudoresponse, caused by radiation ?
Is this what they mean by:
“In reality, the tumor was just returning to its previous size” ?
====================================== Crystin Schiff [3]
—————————————————————–
Ric and Paula Schiff about torture their daughter Crystin had to endure during chemotherapy/radiation treatment
—————————————————————– Diagnosed with perhaps most malignant tumor known, rhabdoid tumor of the brain
—————————————————————–
Historically, there was no case of such a tumor ever having long response to chemotherapy or radiation therapy
—————————————————————–
Received extremely heavy doses of radiation therapy and chemotherapy, because nobody expected she would live longer than year or so
—————————————————————–
Was terribly damaged with this
—————————————————————–
Responded very well to Antineoplastons
—————————————————————– Complete response
—————————————————————— Died from pneumonia
—————————————————————— Immune system was wiped out, so when she aspirated some food, she died from it
—————————————————————– Autopsy revealed didn’t have any sign of malignancy
—————————————————————–
Particularly despicable story, because when Ric Schiff asked Dr. Michael Prados, then head of neuro-oncology at University of California at San Francisco Medical Center (UCSF), if he knew of any other treatment besides chemotherapy/radiation for Crystin’s brain tumor, Prados replied in the negative
But a few years before, he had sent you 14 letters documenting effectiveness of Antineoplastons on Jeff Keller, another patient with brain cancer
Is this true?
Yes, Jeff Keller had extremely malignant brain tumor
had high-grade glioma of the brain; failed radiation therapy and additional treatments
responded extremely well to our treatment
was one of patients whose case was presented to NCI
there was no doubt about his response
Dr. Prados knew about it
If he was dealing with hopeless tumor like Crystin Schiff, why didn’t he call us?
Do you know why Prados did not tell them about Keller’ssuccess with your treatment?
It’s hard for me to tell
It happens that Dr. Prados and Dr. Friedman, who became boss of FDA, came from same medical school
they work closely together, and perhaps there is something to do with general action against us
It would be inconvenient for Dr. Prados to say that treatment works if FDA was trying to get rid of us and when his friend was Commissioner of FDA at that time
Perhaps that’s the connection….
—————————————————————–
Perhaps professor and chairman of oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Jan Buckner, professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, Arthur Caplan, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer, pediatric oncologist and professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Peter Adamson, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS, a/k/a GorskGeek, and “Orac”, ALL think that the rhabdoid tumor of the brain Crystin Schiff had, which disappeared under Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy, were because of Pseudoprogression a/k/a Pseudo-Progression (psPD) and / or pseudoresponse, caused by chemo and radiation ?
Is this what they mean by:
“In reality, the tumor was just returning to its previous size” ?
====================================== REFERENCES:
====================================== [1] – 11/15/2013 – Stanislaw Burzynski in USA Today: Abuse of clinical trials and patients versus the ineffectiveness of the FDA and Texas Medical Board (Getting Worse is Getting Better):
—————————————————————— http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-in-usa-today-abuse-of-clinical-trials-and-patients-versus-the-ineffectiveness-of-the-fda-and-texas-medical-board/
===================================== [2] – 11/11/2013 – “The Amazing Meeting” (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means): 2 Intellectually and Ethically Challenged Individuals, Twaddle at TAM 2013:
——————————————————————
====================================== [5] – 8/13/2013 – Does David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, really CARE about Breast Cancer patients?:
——————————————————————
Gorski wants to play in the kitchen, but he can’t take the heat
2/18/2013, Gorski posted his 1st book report on Hannah Bradley
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories [1]
The year 2012 was rung out and the year 2013 was rung in by news that “Orac” Check-My-Facts-Hack, propagandist for “brave maverick doctor” Dr. David H. Gorski, who claims that sugar doesn’t feed cancer [2], is releasing a sequel to his wildly successful hackumentary (in “The Skeptics™” underground, that is) “How Stanislaw Burzynski became Burzynski the Brave Maverick Doctor, part 1” [3] 😃
In fact, the sequel is coming out on BFD (Blogs For Dummies) on …, well …, just any day now ! 😳
I somehow doubt that GorsKon will send me a screenerBFD to review, but I did review the 4blogettes he posted on Science Based Medicine; home of: “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine” [4], and National Geographic’s(#NatGeo)Science blogs, because it easily falls into a genre that I like to refer to as medical propaganda posts, which are almost always made in support of dubious blogs re medical treatments 😊
Gorhac’s mostly lame jokes about proposed titles aside (e.g., Burzynski II:”“Pathetic Googleloo, Burzynski II:”This Time It’s Pee-Reviewed, or even Burzynski II: FAQ Harder), it’s very clear that in the wake of his decision to drop his “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it” [5]claim re Burzynski on a technicality, and his very own spin doctor named “BOrac, are planning on a huge publicity blitz, in which @gorskon will be portrayed as, yes, a “brave maverick doctor” whom “They” (as in the BPG (Burzynski Patient Group), 3’s company, and the Don’t Mess with Texas Board of Education, a.k.a “DJT”) tried to keep down but failed because he has The Natural Cure For Rancor“Two Turntables and a Mr. Microphone” 😝
I come back to this again because Gorac’s strategy for Burzynski II, as I pointed out, is going to involve “conversion stories” of “The Skeptics™” who didn’t believe in @oracknows magic “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it”, but do now, after Bob ‘n Weave Blaskiewicz proclaimed during the 9/28/2013 “Burzynski Discussion” Google+ Hangout:“I think that professionally he would make, he he he would follow-up on these things” (2:01:00)[6], claims that he’s 75% sure of the identity of someone who has been critical of his work (like me) [7], and, of course, sucky stories 😜
“DOHrac’s” 4 posts consists of four elements:
Bias, MisDisInformation, (anecdotes), including “EOrac’s” “sucky stories”, contrasted with a rehash of “conspiracy theories” from his “review” of the first movie about the “cancer destablishment” trying to suppress common sense with pseudononsense 😄
Never mind that, even if he were FDA-approved, he would be in the same class as “The Skeptics™” that are disdained on social media as being more for hyper-“bull” than anything else because they have been giving B.S. for a long time ☺
He states: “One notes that Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?
no
“mOResmACk” reminds me of Pink
That would be the Pink in Pink Floyd, singing: “We don’t need no edumacation”, because he’s like the churlish schoolboy so intent on getting on to make his 2nd mud pie, that he pulls a wanker on the 1st one
Maybe he should learn how to do real “cancer research” like I posted 8/21/2013 [8]
——————————————————————
10/2004 (Pg. 384) 4.3 months – median duration of administration
——————————————————————
11/2010 (Pg. iv72) 4.4 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
10/2006 (Pg. 466) 4 1/2 months – median duration of i.v. ANP
——————————————————————
3/2006 (Pg. 40) 5 months – median duration of antineoplaston administration
——————————————————————
10/2004 (Pg. 428) 5.2 months – administered median
——————————————————————
12/2009 (Pg. 951) 5.4 months – median duration of treatment (ST)
——————————————————————
12/2009 (Pg. 951) 5.6 months – median duration of treatment (SE)
——————————————————————
10/2004 (Pg. 427) 5.7 months – average duration of ANP
——————————————————————
10/2008 (Pg. 821) 5.7 months – median duration of treatment
—————————————————————— 2003 (Pgs. 91 + 96) 6 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
12/2008 (Pg. 1067) 6.5 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
10/2003 (Pg. 358) 9.5 months – median duration of IV ANP
——————————————————————
7/2005 (Pg. 300) 9 1/2 months – median duration of administration
—————————————————————— 2004 (Pgs. 315 + 320) 16 months (1 year 4 months) average duration of intravenous ANP
——————————————————————
6/2008 (Pg. 450) 16.5 months (1 year 4.5 months) – median
——————————————————————
2004 (Pg. 320)
19 months – average duration of oral ANP
——————————————————————
6/2005 (Pgs. 168 + 170)
20 months (1 year 8 months) administered average duration
——————————————————————
10/2003 (Pg. 358)
28.6 months (2 years 4.6 months) – median duration of po ANP
After obtaining at least minor response (SD), the treatment continued with po ANP
——————————————————————
9/2004 (Pg. 257)
655 consecutive days – administration of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 with the exception of a few short interruptions
—————————————————————— Gorski continues:
“Attacks on skeptics and critics of Burzynski“
“If you don’t believe me, just read question #12 in Merola’s FAQ, in which he states,
“You will notice the ‘anti-Burzynski’ bloggers refuse to do that or adhere to reputable sources”
—————————————————————— Gorski, you did NOT even provide any “source” for your “claim” that:
” … Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
—————————————————————— Gorski adds:
“You might say, they are preying on desperate cancer patients and families of cancer patients by carelessly misleading their readers about Burzynski and his invention.””
—————————————————————— Gorski, let’s check and see where else YOU are “carelessly misleading” your “readers”
One marvels at your amazing level of protestation ッ
However, every movie needs a villain, and it doesn’t take “sidekick” abilities to guess why “The Skeptics™” are portrayed as villains
—————————————————————— Gorski gratuitously gabs on:
“Merola also direly accuses and threatens,
“In the worst case scenarios, some bloggers intentionally publish fabricated information to their readers in an attempt to curb new patients from going to the Burzynski Clinic“
“I can hardly wait”
—————————————————————— Gorski, did you mean to “intentionally publish fabricated information” ? 😮
—————————————————————— “Neither can, I bet, a fair number of lawyers“
—————————————————————— Gorski, who’s your lawyer ?
—————————————————————— Gorski plods onward:
“An attempt to reframe Burzynski’s enormous bills for his antineoplaston therapy and criticism that he’s making clinical trial subjects pay to be in his clinical trials”
—————————————————————— Gorski, BITE ME 🙂
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?
——————————————————————
CHEMOTHERAPY: 9/24/2012 – hospitals routinely marking up prices on cancer drugs 2 to 10 times over cost
Some markups far higher
nearly $4,500 for 240-milligram dose of irinotecan to treat colon or rectal cancer average sales price: less than $60
about $19,000 1-gram dose of rituximab to treat lymphoma and leukemia roughly 3 times average sales price
about $680 50 milligrams of cisplatin markup: more than 50 times average sales price
Avastin, about $90,000 a year http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/24/3549634/prices-soar-as-hospitals-dominate.html
——————————————————————
5/14/2012 – Oral anti-cancer medications generally considered pharmacy benefit
Instead of co-payment plan members often pay % of cost — up to 50% in some cases — with no annual out-of-pocket limit
drugs expensive often costing 10s of 1,000s of $s a year http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-14/national/35457286_1_lung-cancer-drug-drugs-work-multiple-myeloma-patients
——————————————————————
RADIATION: 1/4/2013 – new study most comprehensive cost analysis ever, compared costs and outcomes associated with various types of treatment for all forms of disease, ranged from $19,901 for robot-assisted prostatectomy to treat low-risk disease, $50,276 for combined radiation therapy for high-risk disease http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/01/13370/how-prostate-cancer-therapies-compare-cost-and-effectiveness
——————————————————————
3/15/2012 – Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, 26,163 women with localized breast cancer had undergone surgery and radiation 2001 to 2005
found Medicare billing for IMRT increased 0.9% diagnosed 2001 to 11.2% diagnosed 2005
average cost radiation treatment during 1st year $7,179 for non-IMRT $15,230 with IMRT
billing for IMRT more than 5 times higher in regions across nation where local Medicare coverage determinations favorable to IMRT compared to regions where unfavorable
“The new claim is that Burzynski isn’t making patients pay for his antineoplastons (see question #13 in Merola’s FAQ), just for “clinical management” (as if that weren’t incredibly transparent) Vindication”
—————————————————————— Gorski, “NEW CLAIM” ?
2/4/2013 my post #180 on YOUR blog addressed this “new claim” by referencing a 3/12/1996 note before you posted your article 2/18/2013 [9]
—————————————————————— 3/12/1996: 2nd – 4th paragraphs (2/4/2013 post #180)
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— Gorski, makes an excuse:
“The last time I discussed Merola’s forthcoming movie, I mentioned that he had contacted me in December and asked me to appear as a Burzynski critic“
“After consultation with skeptics with more media savvy than I, not to mention the PR department at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute (whom I thought it wise to give fair warning that one of their faculty might be featured as evil incarnate in a new documentary and to give the background on what it’s all about, in case there were press inquiries), I politely declined“
—————————————————————— Gorski is like fetid HOT AIR, all words and NO action
—————————————————————— Gorski fumes:
“While going on and on about how he thinks most of us have “good motives” and how we want to be the white knight riding in to save patients from quackery (a desire he somehow manages to convey with clear dismissiveness and contempt), Merola turns immediately around to claim that we don’t know what we’re talking about and we don’t read the literature“
—————————————————————— Gorski, YOU really “don’t know what” you’re “talking about” and I’m just getting warmed up 🙂
—————————————————————— Gorski has smoke coming out his ears:
“This, of course, is complete nonsense, as I’ve read many of Burzynski’s papers (such as they are), delved into ClinicalTrials.gov to look at his clinical trials, examined the plausibility of his claims from a scientific standpoint, and examined the literature from others, both on antineoplastons and related topics”
“I’ve dissected Burzynski’s claims for antineoplastons based on science, assessed his “personalized, gene-targeted cancer therapy” claims and found them wanting, and pointed out how what he is peddling isn’t really anything new at all (more on that later), all based on my knowledge, skills, and understanding of cancer as a breast cancer surgeon and researcher”
“No doubt that’s why Merola needs to discredit me“
—————————————————————— Gorski, Eric Merola does NOT need “to discredit” you
YOU have already done a yeoman’s job of discrediting yourself [10] 🙂
—————————————————————— Gorski posits:
“Other bloggers who have been critical of Burzynski might or might not have my scientific background, but they’ve delved just as deeply into his claims and the evidence for them, and, as I have, they’ve found them highly overinflated and largely not based in science”
—————————————————————— Gorski, unfortunately, is NOT able to name these “[o]ther bloggers”
—————————————————————— Gorski deposits:
“They’ve also taken on aspects of the Burzynski phenomenon, such what I consider to be his questionable ethics and finding out what happened to a lot of patients who trusted Burzynski, far better than I have”
“Merola’s dismissal of Burzynski’s critics is, quite frankly, insulting to them and to me.”
—————————————————————— Gorski fails to mention the very “questionable ethics” of his intrepid research bud Bob [11]
—————————————————————— Gorski rants:
“I don’t know what sort of attacks on the UK bloggers who produce the bulk of the skeptical blog posts about Burzynski are coming in Burzynski II, but when it comes to me no doubt Merola is referring to this bit of yellow journalism in 2010 from an antivaccine propagandist named Jake Crosby, entitled David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties:”
“What He Didn’t Tell You”
——————————————————————
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim that it’s:
“UK bloggers who produce the bulk of the skeptical blog posts about Burzynski” ?
“What He Didn’t Tell You” ?
NO
—————————————————————— Gorski blots:
“Predictable and tiresome attacks aside, Pete and Hannah’s video made me curious about the specific success stories that Merola will focus on as “proof” that Burzynski is on to something; so I decided I should look into their stories”
“On the surface to those not familiar with cancer they do look like success stories”
“If one digs deeper, the true story is a lot murkier”
—————————————————————— Doctor “G” omits, that once “one digs deeper”, HIS“story is a lot murkier”
—————————————————————— Gorski A.D.D.s:
“More importantly, as I will show, even if they really are success stories—which is not at all clear—they do not constitute convincing evidence of the general efficacy of Burzynski’s antineoplastons, nor do they justify what I consider to be Burzynski’s highly unethical behavior.”
—————————————————————— More importantly, as I will show, is what I consider to be Gorski’s highly unethical behavior
—————————————————————— Gorski flails away:
“I will start with Hannah Bradley’s story because I’ve watched the entire 40 minute video Hannah’s Anecdote (whose title is even more appropriate than perhaps Pete Cohen imagined when he made it)”
“The documentary ends triumphantly several months after the events portrayed during the bulk of the film with Hannah apparently having had a complete response to Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy:”
——————————————————————
Let me just first say something before I begin my usual analysis
I love these reviews 😘
I really do
Yes, it’s true that GorsGeek can be a bit annoying with his seeming desire to validate everything he flogs about some perceived “offender,”as being applicable to him, but I want GorskGeek and “HOrac” to be able to live a long and full life together, growing old in each other’s company
I really do
In fact, I’d love to hang with these two and maybe buy them a pint or two at their local pub (except that it’s pointed out multiple times that GOrackGeek should no longer drink alcohol)
“Such is not my intent, but what are skeptics supposed to do?”
“Shy away from undertaking a dispassionate analysis of patient anecdotes used to promote dubious cancer therapies for fear of what patients will say?”
—————————————————————— Gorski, it might actually help IF you knew how to do a proper “dispassionate analysis” 😐
—————————————————————— Gorski cites from the Team Hannah blog
“Hannah’s treatment options are very limited and her life expectancy is for this type of tumour is normally around 18 months and this is why I started a mission to find people who had the same condition and are still alive today”
“I managed to track down a number of these people to speak to them.”
“In his movie, Pete points out that these people all led back to Burzynski“
Gorski interjects:
“Of course, as I’ve said before, dead patients don’t produce testimonials for alternative cancer cures“
——————————————————————
One wonders why Gorski even makes this comment as the number of patients Pete contacted re Burzynski’s “alternative cancer” cure, were obviously NOT dead 😮
—————————————————————— Gorski segues on to:
“Not long after they appear at the Burzynski Clinic, they meet with doctors there who tell them that Hannah’s most recent MRI scan showed progression of her tumor (around 8:30 in the movie)”
“Now, I’m not a radiologist, much less a neuroradiologist, but I wondered at all the enhancement on the superficial area of the brain, just under where her neurosurgeon must have raised the bone flap to remove what he could of the tumor“
“One wonders if much of the remaining enhancement could be still post-surgical and post-radiation change“
“Certainly, the tumor is cystic-appearing, and after surgery such cysts would likely shrink and be reabsorbed even if the tumor were to keep growing”
—————————————————————— Gorski, if you were NOT in a such a rush to post your blog article “ad homineming” Josh Duhamel, you could have taken the time to do proper “cancer research” and maybe listen to the 9/24/2012 @YouTube video of Pete Cohen talking with Neurosurgeon (Consultant) Juan F. Martinez-Canca (20:31)
After all, HE is an actual NEUROSURGEON
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Or you could read the transcript I made of the video [12]
——————————————————————
Or you could have contacted him and asked questions http://www.neurokonsilia.com/About-Us.html
—————————————————————— Gorski tangents:
“Be that as it may, there were a number of things I found very interesting in this video”
“First, I notice that nowhere was there anything mentioned about enrolling Hannah on a clinical trial“
—————————————————————— Gorski, if you had let Hannah know you were going to do your article about her, she might have churned her 4/4/2013 article out faster just for you, where she advises:
“Luckily I was able to take part in a phase 2 clinical trial in Texas, USA”[13]
—————————————————————— Gorski stupefies:
“Given what a thorough videographer Pete obviously is, I find this omission very curious”
“Certainly, given how much detail he’s used in this video and in his vlogs I’d expect that if the subject of clinical trials was mentioned he would have included it”
—————————————————————— Gorski, if you were NOT so busy “getting the popcorn” as you “watched the entire 40 minute video Hannah’s Anecdote”, you might have actually noticed at (7:14):
—————————————————————— 12/12/2011 – Day 2 – Monday
Meeting with Dr. Yi and Dr. Greg Burzynski at Burzynski Clinic
—————————————————————— Dr. Greg Burzynski – “We have permission to start you on the antineoplastons”
“Mhmm”
Dr. Greg Burzynski – “which as you know are in the final stages of drug approval”
“Yeah”
Dr. Greg Burzynski – “Dr. Yi is the oncologist on this case”
—————————————————————— Gorski, did you SEE THAT ?
An ONCOLOGIST at the Burzynski Clinic, working with Burzynski
(No wonder you left that out !)
—————————————————————— Gorski ejects:
“The other thing that struck me was just how much Burzynski is full of it when he advertises antineoplastons as not being chemotherapy and, more importantly, as being nontoxic“
“At least a third of the video consisted of the difficulties that Hannah had with her treatment, including high fevers, a trip to the emergency room, and multiple times when the antineoplaston treatment was stopped“
“She routinely developed fevers to 102° F, and in one scene her fever reached 103.9° F“
“She felt miserable, nauseated and weak“
“I’ve seen chemotherapy patients suffer less”
—————————————————————— Gorski whines:
“I’ve seen chemotherapy patients suffer less”, but this is purely “anecdotal”
“At least a third of the video consisted of the difficulties that Hannah had with her treatment”
Let’s do the math, shall we ?
——————————————————————
In America (48 days)
12/11/2011 (Sunday) – 1/27/2012 (Friday)
[4:52 – 35:43]
—————————————————————— Burzynski Clinic 47 days – (7 weeks)
12/12/2011 (Monday) – 1/26/2012 (Thursday)
[5:37 – 35:43]
—————————————————————— 12/13/2011 (Tuesday) Day 3
after catheter – Hickman line surgery
(painful / really painful) [10:30]
—————————————————————— 12/14/2011 (Wednesday) Day 4
(feeling wrecked / absolutely wrecked) [10:52]
—————————————————————— 12/24/2011 (Saturday) Day 14
fever
bad breathing
uncontrollable chills couldn’t stop shivering all Saturday night [18:10]
—————————————————————— 12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15
fever
flu symptoms
bad breathing
headache
in bed
absolutely exhausted
little bit of swelling back of head [18:10]
—————————————————————— 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17
temp 102
temp down / up [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18
exhausted
close to breaking / cracking [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19
hospital – E.R.
“I’m at my wits end”
“I don’t feel I can take anymore” [20:07]
—————————————————————— 12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20
last week up & down
fever
chills
shaking
viral infection
bacterial infection
had to go to E.R. [20:22]
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21
fever in middle of night
flu-like symptoms
temp 102 [21:53]
—————————————————————— 1/1/2012 (Sunday) Day 22
feel drunky
felt like completely drunk
double vision
Nurse said anti-seizure drug she hadn’t taken before
bit shaky [22:34]
—————————————————————— 1/15/2012 (Sunday) Day 36
antibiotics 1st day [24:33]
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37
over 102 Monday night
antibiotics 2nd day [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38
fever
temp 101.8
throat infection
antibiotics been on 3 days [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41
fever 104 (103.9) Friday night [26:54]
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42
temp up to 104 (103.9)
Dr. on-call – Ibuprofen
102.5
yesterday afternoon (blood) rash ? [27:50]
—————————————————————— 1/23/2012 (Monday) Day 44
some itch [28:35] ======================================
47 days – Burzynski Clinic 31 days – treatmentNOTmentioned 16 days – treatment mentioned ====================================== 12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15 off ANP [18:10]
—————————————————————— 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17 back on ANP off ANP – temp 102
temp down / up [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18 on ANP much smaller dose [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19
hospital – E.R. [20:07]
—————————————————————— 12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20
last week up & down off on off on off ANP [20:22]
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21
temp 102 [21:53]
—————————————————————— 1/15/2012 (Sunday) Day 36
antibiotics 1st day [24:33]
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37
over 102 Monday night
antibiotics 2nd day [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38
temp 101.8 off ANP (If 102 take off ANP)
antibiotics been on 3 days [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41
fever 104 (103.9) Friday night [26:54]
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42 off ANP – temp up to 104 (103.9)
102.5 [27:50] ====================================== 5 – off ANP
May have beenoff ANP5 to 6 days out of 47? ====================================== 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17
temp 102
temp down / up [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19
hospital – E.R. [20:07]
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21
temp 102 – in middle of night [21:53]
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37
temp over 102 Monday night
antibiotics 2nd day [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38
temp 101.8
antibiotics been on 3 days [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41
temp 104 (103.9) Friday night [26:54]
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42
102.5 [27:50] ====================================== 6 days – temperature mentioned
temp 102 – temp down / up – 12/27/2011 102 in middle of night – 12/31/2011 102+ Monday night – 1/16/2012 temp 101.8 – 1/17/2012 104 (103.9) Friday night – 1/20/2012 102.5 – 1/21/2012 ====================================== Gorski scatterbrains on:
“I was also very puzzled at how the Burzynski Clinic could allow a cancer patient to linger with a fever of 102° F and sometimes higher, accompanied by shaking chills, in a temporary lodging without admitting her to the hospital“
——————————————————————
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?
“It’s not clear what sort of workup was done to evaluate Hannah either, what her white blood cell count was, or what her other labs were“
“Did they draw blood cultures?”
“Did they get urinalyses and cultures?”
“Did they do chest X-rays to rule out pneumonia?”
—————————————————————— Gorski, maybe you should have asked Wayne Dolcefino
Or maybe you should have gone to the Burzynski Clinic
Oh, wait
You think you know everything and could NOT learn anything by going there 😅
—————————————————————— Gorski at least gets one thing correct:
“It’s all very unclear, other than that she apparently was given some antibiotics at some point”
—————————————————————— 1/15/2012 Monday Day 36 antibiotics 1st day
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 Tuesday Day 37 antibiotics 2nd day
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38 antibiotics been on 3 days
—————————————————————— Gorski wonders:
“Did she have the flu, given her flu-like symptoms, or was this due to her antineoplaston therapy?“
—————————————————————— Gorski, why not “speculate” like “The Skeptics™” usually do ?
—————————————————————— 12/24/2011 (Saturday) Day 14 fever
bad breathing
shivering all night
—————————————————————— 12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15 flu symptoms
breathing
headache
uncontrollable chills couldn’t stop off ANP absolutely exhausted
in bed
little bit of swelling back of head
—————————————————————— 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17 back on ANP temp 102 – off ANP temp down / up
—————————————————————— 12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18 on ANP much smaller dose exhausted – close to breaking / cracking
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19 hospital – E.R.
—————————————————————— 12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20 last week up & down off on off on off fever
chills
shaking
viral infection
bacterial infection
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21 temp 102 – fever in middle of night
Dr. SRB thinks flu-like symptoms or tumor actually breaking down
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37 temp 102+ Monday night
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38 throat infection temp 101.8 – fever – off ANP antibiotics been on 3 days
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41 104 (103.9) – fever – Friday night
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42 temp up to 104
Dr. on-call – Ibuprofen 102.5 – off ANP yesterday afternoon rash
—————————————————————— Gorski ponders:
“The reaction of the clinic staff (i.e., rather blasé, even though at one point Hannah clearly demonstrates a change in mental status, appearing “drunk” and complaining of double-vision) made me wonder if this sort of problem was a common occurrence”
—————————————————————— Gorski, what’s the matter ?
Did you grab another handful of popcorn ?
—————————————————————— 1/1/2012 (Sunday) Day 22Burzynski Clinic feel drunky
felt like completely drunk
double vision
bit shaky Nurse said anti-seizure drug she hadn’t taken before [22:34]
—————————————————————— Gorski, what are some of the side-effects of “anti-seizure” medications ?
dizziness
double-vision
drowsiness
imbalance
loss of coordination
Problems with motor skills
Problems with tasks requiring sustained performance
nausea
slurred speech
staggering
mental disturbances
serious mood changes
—————————————————————— http://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/epilepsy
—————————————————————— Gorski continues his assault on the popcorn:
“At another point, Pete and Hannah come to believe that the fevers might have been due to the tumor breaking down, which strikes me as implausible”
—————————————————————— Gorski, if it “strikes” you “as implausible”, then why did you ask, above ?
“Did she have the flu, given her flu-like symptoms, or was this due to her antineoplaston therapy?“
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21 temp 102 – fever in middle of night Dr. SRB thinks flu-like symptoms OR tumor actually breaking down [21:53]
—————————————————————— Gorski blunders along:
“Later, she develops an extensive rash“
—————————————————————— 1/23/2012 (Monday) Day 44 Pete sent pic to Dr. SRB who gave name from pic and Pete verified [28:35]
—————————————————————— Gorski bumbles onward:
“It’s difficult to tell for sure what it is at the resolution of the video, but it looks like erythema multiforme, which is generally an allergic rash”
“What’s the most likely cause of such a rash?”
“Guess”
“Erythema multiforme is usually a drug reaction”
—————————————————————— Gorski, what can cause “Erythema multiforme” ?
“Does this mean that Burzynski’s antineoplaston treatment worked for Hannah?“
“Sadly, the answer is:”
“Not necessarily”
“It might have”
“It might not have”
“Why do I say this?”
“First, she didn’t have much residual disease after surgery and radiotherapy, and in fact it’s hard to tell how much is tumor and how much is postop and radiation effect“
—————————————————————— Gorski, I think it’s safe to say that neurosurgeon Dr. Martinez knows much better than you and your speculation
—————————————————————— Gorski
“Second, the median survival for anaplastic astrocytoma (which is a form of glioma) is around 2 to 3 years, and with different types of radiation therapy five year survival is around 15% or even higher”
—————————————————————— Gorski provides a link to a site which advises [14]:
High-grade tumors grow rapidly and can easily spread through the brain“
High-grade tumors are much more aggressive and require very intensive therapy
All patients with high-grade astrocytomas receive both radiation therapy and chemotherapy regardless of age
Prognosis is poor in this group of patients
—————————————————————— Gorski’s 2nd linked source advises [15]:
These highly aggressive tumors often occur in young adults and typically recur or progress to a grade 4 glioblastoma within several years of diagnosis, despite treatment with surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy
Tumor more resistant to therapy and patients have shorter median survival of only 2 to 3 years
—————————————————————— Gorski’s 3rd link [16] showcases his lame research as one has to read through almost the entire article to find the reference, which directs the reader to yet another publication [17]:
Gorski FAILS to advise the reader that the 2002 study is titled:
“Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) for previously untreated malignant gliomas“
Hannah Bradley’s WAS previously treated
Gorski also FAILS to advise the reader if this study included patients with grade 3 or 4 tumors
—————————————————————— Gorski claims:
“Thus, long term survival for patients with astrocytomas is not so rare that Hannah’s survival is so unlikely that the most reasonable assumption has to be that it was Burzynski’s treatment that saved her”
—————————————————————— Gorski, nice claim, but you did NOT really prove it
—————————————————————— Gorski suspects:
“More likely, Hannah is a fortunate outlier, although it’s hard for me to say even that because, at only two years out from her initial diagnosis, she’s only just reached the lower end of the range of reported median survival times for her disease”
—————————————————————— Gorski, the operative word is “outLIER”
Gorski then goes all “conspiracy theory” about a supposed “cryptic Facebook post”, a “vlog entry no longer exists”, “Hannah and Pete supposedly being “evasive”, “using vague terms”, a “little blip”, and “lack of new scans”
Next, little green “popcorn munchin'” men 👽
—————————————————————— 3/4/2013 Gorski drops “conspiracy theory, part II” on an unsuspecting audience [19]:
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories update: Why is the release of the Burzynski sequel being delayed?
It’s no secret that I happen to NOT be on several mailing lists of “The Skeptics™”whose dedication to science is—shall we say?—questionable
As I delved deeper, I learned that Gorski’s evidence for the “questioning” of the anticancer efficacy of “antineoplaston therapy” doesn’t hold up; that his “questioning” of “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” is anything but; and that he’s an orphan now in what appears to me to be a strategy to bypass restrictions on his use of proper “cancer research “
The CliffsNotes version for those who don’t want to read Gorsack’s previous lengthy post is that he claims Hannah’s tumor, an astrocytoma (which is a form of glioma) did indeed appear to regress, but that regression can likely be explained by the surgery and radiation therapy that she had
Even then, however, he claims it would not be evidence that the antineoplastons saved her because there are occasional complete remissions in this tumor type, and long term survivors, although uncommon, are not so uncommon that Hannah must be evidence that antineoplastons are so miraculously effective that they saved her when conventional medicine could not
Gorski’s claims are anecdotal, as he failed miserably to provide the necessary citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claims
Gorski claims:
“I try very hard not to cross that line, and I think I’ve been successful, for instance, here”
But I proved again, above, how he fails and fails again with his “amateurish” attempts at proper “cancer research”
Similarly, Gorski realizes that it is very effective to appeal to emotions and cast Burzynski’s as heartless
Gorski inserts other Burzynski patients into his posts about Pete and Hannah
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #1 – “One notes that Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #2 – “The new claim is that Burzynski isn’t making patients pay for his antineoplastons (see question #13 in Merola’s FAQ), just for “clinical management” (as if that weren’t incredibly transparent) Vindication”
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #3 – “First, I notice that nowhere was there anything mentioned about enrolling Hannah on a clinical trial“
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #4 – “Certainly, given how much detail he’s used in this video and in his vlogs I’d expect that if the subject of clinical trials was mentioned he would have included it“
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #5 – “The reaction of the clinic staff (i.e., rather blasé, even though at one point Hannah clearly demonstrates a change in mental status, appearing “drunk”and complaining of double-vision) made me wonder if this sort of problem was a common occurrence”
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #6 – Well, I could add more … 🙂
——————————————————————
My apologies to the following co-authors if you ever had to check the “cancer research” of one: Gorski D., Gorski DH, D H Gorski,
Alsina J, Banda M, Beckett MA, Bigelow K, Branellec D, Burtch GD, Calvin DP, Campbell DA Jr., Chen Y, Colletti LM, Copeland NG, N G Copeland, Coyne JC, Dedieu JF, Denèfle P, DeVries JA, Dhanabal M, Gabriel EM, Gately S, Germino FJ, Goydos JS, Guo K, Halpern A, Hanna NN, Hari DM, Heimann R, Hellman S, Isner JM, Jaskowiak NT, Jenkins NA, N A Jenkins, Johansen C, Kaur H, Kim HJ, Koons A, Krawetz SA, Kufe DW, Leal AD, Leal AJ., LePage DF, D F LePage, Lincecum J, Mahfoudi A, Mann B, Mao S, Mattingly RR., Mauceri HJ, Mekani T, Merion RM, Pastore C, Patel CV, C V Patel, Patel S, Perlman H, Posner MC, Rabson AB, Salloum RM, Saunders MP, Seetharam S, Shah S, Shih W, Sloane BF, Smith JS, Smith RC, Soff GA, Speyer CL, Staba MJ, Stellato KA, Stratford IJ, Sukhatme VP, Turcotte JG, Walsh K., K Walsh, Weichselbaum RR.
====================================== REFERENCES:
====================================== [1] – 2/18/2013 – Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories
——————————————————————
====================================== [3] – Critiquing: How Stanislaw Burzynski became Burzynski the Brave Maverick Doctor, part 1:
——————————————————————
====================================== [5] – 10/18/2013 – Deconstructing Dr. David H. (Orac) Gorski – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
====================================== [6] – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
====================================== [7] – 5/7/2013 – Critiquing: Is Eric Merola issuing bogus DMCA takedown notices against critics of Stanislaw Burzynski?:
——————————————————————
====================================== [11] – 10/27/2013 – “The Skeptics™” Burzynski Bias, Censorship, Lies, and Alibi’s: September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— DJT – Didymus Judas Thomas
—————————————————————— BB – Bob Blaskiewicz
====================================== (0:12:00)
—————————————————————— DJT – Well a lot of the time I’m making fun of y’all’s favorite oncologist, the way he words his blogs, and uhmmm I cite specifically from the FDA, from from the National Cancer Institute, from these other scientific sources, from scientific publications
I give people specific information so they can fact-check me, unlike a lot of The Skeptics who just go out there and say things and publish things on social media, they provide no back-up for their uhhh sayings
—————————————————————— (0:13:00)
—————————————————————— DJT – And so I’ve tried to add those things and allow people to search, on specific things like publications, or what I posted about The Lancet, or specifically about The Skeptics, or specifically about the oncologist
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— DJT – Well the thing is, when you accepted this hangout, I published my newest blog article and I specifically listed all the information I had critiqued from you previously including Amelia, and I posted the specific Twitter responses by BurzynskiMovie; which is probably Eric, to your issues with Amelia, and he disagrees with what the oncologist posted, and so I pretty much let his Twitter responses stand to what the oncologist said
—————————————————————— 0:14:24
======================================
If it's true that #burzynski and his adman Merola have insinuated that parents are to blame for Amelia's death that's utterly disgusting.
— Burzynski Documentary Series (@BurzynskiMovie) March 15, 2013
====================================== DJT – Well what I find interesting about these other doctors is like like the doctors mentioned in the movie and BBC Panorama’s report and in some of these newspaper articles where they are mentioned again is that these doctors never do a review of Burzynski’s scientific publications and including our favorite oncologist who refuses to do so [4]
“I think” ====================================== 11/2/2012 – “Personally having pored over Burzynski’s publications” ======================================
DJT – Oh yeah he says he’s read everything but uh you know he claims that he’s uhmmm reviewed, reviewed uh Burzynski’s personalized gene targeted therapy but he, but then just a few months ago he admitted, you know, I don’t know where Burzynski says which genes are targeted by antineoplastons
And I pointed out which specific publications that Burzynski published, publications which specifically mention which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, and I said how can you claim that you’ve read and reviewed every Burzynski publication and you didn’t know which genes are targeted by antineoplastons when that’s specifically in the publications ?
To me that tells me that you do not know how antineoplastons work be because you just admitted you don’t know which genes Burzynski talks about
I mean that’s just funny as heck to me that he would say that [5]
—————————————————————— 0:25:07
—————————————————————— DJT – But the other issue is that Skeptics have posted on there that he could not get that accelerated approval until he had published a phase 2 trial and that is exactly not the case because other drugs have been given accelerated approval before their results were published in phase 2 clinical trial publications, cuz, so that question remains as well [6] ====================================== “Temodar and Avastin both had proper, completed, and published phase II trials before approval” ======================================
====================================== Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) tweeted at 10:44am – 31 Jul 13:
@TomLemley1 @AceofSpadesHQ @mikespillane The FDA won’t approve his drug until he ever finishes and publishes a trial. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?te…
======================================
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/362599624596393984
And so when I critique an oncologist or any other Skeptic I always provide source material so people can always fact-check me and I specifically said that people should fact-check everything ummm that the oncologist should say because he has, I’ve proven him to be frequently incorrect about his information and misleading
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 0:44:00
—————————————————————— DJT – The thing that’s funny is that people can say, ohhh Burzynski charges a lot, but the fact is, so does chemo, radiation, and some of these newspaper articles that have been published, and specifically in the movie, Burzynski 2, one of the people mentioned how much someone was paying for standard treatment
And I noticed our favorite oncologist didn’t comment about that in his movie review [7]
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 1:11:04
—————————————————————— BB – “There’s something that that we don’t know, you’re coming, honestly we didn’t know what to expect when we talked to you”
“We, were looking at the design, of your web-site and wondering whether or not we would be able to get a a coherent sentence out of you, because the web-site is disorganized, uh”
“Um, at at at at least it’s the organization is not apparent to the readers“
“Um, and um according to”
—————————————————————— DJT
That’s like, that’s like saying that Gorski’s web-site is disorganized, his blog is like anti vaccine one day, Burzynski the next, blah blah blah
—————————————————————— BB – “No, that is tied together”
—————————————————————— 1:12:00
—————————————————————— BB – “But let me, we know that that the the, the central concern is Burzynski“ ======================================
This is so Hilarious
Bob, why don’t you give a detailed explanation of how my blog with all its different search functions, is more “disorganized” than yours, and how about an in-depth data-analysis of Gorski’s “Respectful Insolence” blog, listing the # of Burzynski articles versus other articles
Oh
By the way, if you have NOT yet figured it out, my entire blog is Burzynski related ====================================== DJT – Well I think that people who really believe in “Free Speech,” and when it’s done rationally, I mean, Gorski would never, really respond to any of my questions, so I
—————————————————————— BB – “Did he, did he leave them up ?”
“Did he leave them up ?”
—————————————————————— DJT – Well I know that he specifically removed a review I did uh of his review of Burzynski I on his web, on his blog
But he’s pretty much left a lot of my comments up that I’ve seen
Uh, but he never really responded to my questions about, what he based his beliefs upon
—————————————————————— 1:27:00
—————————————————————— BB – “Right, um, do you think that he is required to answer you ?”
—————————————————————— DJT – Well I would think, if you’re going to base your position on a certain thing, and then you can’t back it up with scientific literature, uh, you should answer, maybe not specifically to me, but answer the question
Answer to your readers [8]
—————————————————————— BB – “Right”
—————————————————————— DJT – You know, I can tell his readers come on my blog because it shows that they come on my blog
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 1:34:00
—————————————————————— BB – “Um, you know, Gorski blogs under his real name, and is critical of uh, uh, also, let’s face it, everyone know, knows who “Orac” is”
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 1:39:00
—————————————————————— BB – “Uh, what’s next for you”
—————————————————————— DJT – Well I’ll just keep reviewing the, any inaccurate statements I see posted
You know, it depends on if it’s Gorski, you know
Gorski’s gone on there and posted inaccurate stuff, and I call him out, you know he’s basically said on his blog, you know, if I do something inaccurate, you know, I’ll ‘fess up to it
====================================== ====================================== 6/3/2013 – “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it” ======================================
Well, I’ve pointed out where he’s done that and said “Hey, you said you were gonna ‘fess up to it”
If I said on my blog that I was going to ‘fess up to doing something wrong, and you caught me, well, then I should, come out and say, “Okay, you got me”
But Gorski won’t even do that, you know, he just continues to go on down the road, as if
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 1:56:02
—————————————————————— DJT – Well, I’m sure, I’m sure Gorskiwould have a comment about that, as he’s commented previously about how he thinks uh Burzynski should publish
—————————————————————— BB – “Oh I, I I I certainly don’t think that he would put a lot of stock in it, but I, I, I know Dave Gorski enough, he wants this to work”
“He has patients who are dying, you know”
“And if if if let’s say that that Burzynski could get ah his gene-targeted therapy to work on breast cancer patients in in a reliable way, that would be, such a help to these people, that that Gorski’s trying to help”
—————————————————————— 1:57:10
—————————————————————— BB – “Um, yea, it doesn’t matter now whether or not Burz, whether or not Gorski agrees with how Burzynski publishes” ======================================
This is Laughable
Nowhere have I seen any indication from Gorski of a positive nature towards Burzynski [9] ====================================== DJT – Like I said before
Like I said before on my blog, you know, even if Burzynski publishes his phase 2 information, Gorski can just jump up and down and say, “Well, that just shows evidence of efficacy, you know, it’s not phase 3, so it doesn’t really prove it”
—————————————————————— 1:58:04
—————————————————————— DJT – So then he can go on, you know, for however many years he wants to
—————————————————————— BB – “But he is a, the thing is, the thing is, you thing you have to understand is Gorski, Gorski is a genuine expert, in matters re re regarding on oncology studies“
I mean, he has a”
—————————————————————— DJT – Well,
—————————————————————— BB – “He, He’s able to convince people, he’s able to convince people, on the strength of his record, to give him money to carry out research”
People who know what they’re talking about”
To give him money to carry out his research”
Right ?”
—————————————————————— DJT – This is, this is a guy who must phone it in because, he went in there and posted the old Josephine Jones response that, you know, no drugs had been approved by the FDA without their final phase 2 publication 1st being published, which was not a factual statement, and you’ve made the same statement
So I, I’m thinking that Gorski just bought her statement and took it and ran with it, and before he fact-checked it, and what, what happened, it was wrong
—————————————————————— 1:59:00
—————————————————————— DJT – I mean, Gorski needs to stop phoning stuff in, and check his sources before he posts stuff, because I’ve found many cases where, he hasn’t seemed to do that, and that’s why I question him
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— DJT – He’s done more than the case studies
He’s specifically given uh, almost all the information om an oncologist would want
And Gorski, and Gorski
—————————————————————— BB – “Except for a ph, completed phase 3 clinical trial”
——————————————————————
(laughing)
DJT – I mean, I love Gorski, but he comes up with these stupid excuses like, “Well, Burzynski is not an oncologist”
—————————————————————— 2:01:00
—————————————————————— DJT – Well, Gorski doesn’t go go in there and look at his other, his phase 2 clinical trial publications, as far as the preliminary reports, and look at the co-authors, and see if any of those guys are oncologists, and that they’re working with Gorski, I mean they’re working with Burzynski
I find that ridiculous
——————————————————————
Uh, Guy Chapman, “It’s a blog, not a peer-reviewed publication”
—————————————————————— BB – “Um, so, it it is kind of, slightly disingenuous to hold uh Gorski to the same . . standard that you would, it on his blog“
“I think that professionally he would make, he he he would follow-up on these things” ====================================== PROVE IT [10] ====================================== 2:03:03
—————————————————————— DJT – I mean, Gorski doesn’t want to deal with the issues
Hey, I’ve said it to Gorski
He liked to back his stuff up on the Mayo study, yet he wouldn’t, he wouldn’t uh debate about the Mayo study
He likes to say, “Well, Burzynski is not an oncologist,” but he won’t, say Hey, look at the publications, are any of the guys on the publications oncologists ?
We know that Gorski, we know that Burzynski works with oncologists in his practice
So, just because Burzynski himself is not an an oncologist, does not necessarily mean anything
Do we need to go out, onto PubMed, and, and review every particular person that’s published something about cancer and see if they’re all oncologists ?
Seriously
—————————————————————— 2:04:11
—————————————————————— DJT – I mean, Gorski will just
—————————————————————— BB – “Yeah, but they”
—————————————————————— DJT – post a lot of stuff without backing it up
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 2:16:09
—————————————————————— DJT – What I defend, is that, y’all post stuff, a lot of Skeptics post stuff, including Gorski, and they do not back it up, with references, citations, or links
Gorski will just post stuff, like he did about saying, you know, the FDA would not approve, uh, accelerated approval, without a final phase 2 clinical trial being published, which was an incorrect statement, he did not provide any link
—————————————————————— BB – “Even if it’s true or false you, honestly though”
—————————————————————— DJT – We know it’s false
—————————————————————— BB – “Even if it’s true or false, in in that particular instance, you know, eh let’s just say that you’re right”
Gorski gets that point completely wrong”
It has no bearing on whether or not, ANP works”
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 2:18:00
—————————————————————— DJT – You know, I don’t see why Gorski is afraid of debating issues
—————————————————————— BB – “I don’t think he is””
—————————————————————— DJT – on the Internet, on his blog
—————————————————————— BB – “I don’t think he’s afraid”
“I just think he’s got a lot going on”
“He is act, a full-time surgical oncologist and researcher”
“He does have insane am, he has to pick and choose his battles”
“And if, if if he saw that we were going to ultimately be circling around our same arguments again and again; kind of like we’ve done here, um, he uh, you, he doesn’t have time for that, I don’t think”
—————————————————————— 2:19:00
—————————————————————— BB – “I mean”
—————————————————————— DJT – Hey, he has time to post about, “Hey, uh, Burzynski got a Catholic award from somebody,” which, has nothing to do with antineoplastons, whatsoever
So, you know, he’s not focusing just in on,
“Do antineoplastons work, yes or no?,”
“When will Burzynski publish ?,” yes or no ?
You know, he’s putting all this ridiculous side junk, you know
So, I am not going to take that seriously
====================================== REFERENCES:
====================================== [1] – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
====================================== [2] – Robert J. (don’t call me “Bobby”) Blaskiewicz’s #Epic Skeptic “Word-Salad” #Fail – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
====================================== [3] – DJT’s Comments – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
====================================== [6] – Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, quickly realized that David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS is NOT doing something wrong when he LIES about Burzynski:
——————————————————————
====================================== [7] – Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure”
is reviewed…with Insolence:
——————————————————————
====================================== [8] – IMPORTANT: The live “debate” that wasn’t-A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
——————————————————————
====================================== [9] – Does David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, really CARE about Breast Cancer patients?:
——————————————————————
[1] – 9/19/2013 – “Americans love to fight, traditionally”
“All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle…When you, here, everyone of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players, and the All-American football players”
“Americans love a winner”
“Americans will not tolerate a loser”
– General George S. Patton, Jr., June.5, 1944
The above might as well be Greek to Dr. David H. Gorski a/k/a “Orac”
He’s the epitome of the word “loser”
Indeed, “Orac” described his work-place nemesis as “user hostile”
After 5 years, he still didn’t fully understand much of it, and he claims he’s not exactly computer illiterate
Gorski is that “guy” who couldn’t even find Burzynski’s publication:
[2] – 1997 – Burzynski. S.R. Antineoplastons. oncogenes and cancer
[3] – “Orac” batted the big “O” when he tried to find “the scientific rationale to expect that” antineoplastons “might have antitumor activity”
[4] – Gorski was geniusless when it came to finding “which genes are targeted by antineoplastons,“proving that he really does NOT know Burzynski’s personalized gene-targeted therapy
In fairness, I will point out that he hasn’t put the time in to learn all the ins and outs of the system …
He pontidefecates about phase II clinical trials when his name isn’t even on a phase 2 trial, too
[5] – 9/19/2013 – He’s the “guy” who’s “mystified” as to how Stanislaw Burzynski “has managed to keep practicing for 36 years after he first began treating patients with an unapproved (not ordinary) chemotherapeutic drug (the concoction of peptides purportedly isolated from blood and urine that Burzynski dubbed “antineoplastons” because of their alleged ability to inhibit the growth of cancer)”
This is not an issue unique to Gorski; I’ve discussed other cases like this, such as Bobby Blaskiewicz, who used his man-crush relationship with Gorski to appear on the Skeptic Canary Show; Davey James, who was only recently stripped of his license to practice in several states of mind; Adam Jacobs, who went so far as to use his business influence to alter his Dianthus Mediclueless web-site in London to be more hack friendly, and an interventist who administered twerkpidity to posers who didn’t have common sense and defrauded minions for tens of millions of minutia
It’s a general problem
However, as far as doctors who should have been shut down a long time ago, “Orac” takes the cake
[6] – He has NOT yet figured out that Burzynski learned from the best
[7] – Who could do it better than someone like Dr. Michael A. Friedman, Associate Director, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Division of Cancer Treatment (DCT), National Cancer Institute (NCI), Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health (NIH) who Burzynski had to deal with:
“This is, as you point out, a most serious matter, and I was hoping that you could allay my concerns by showing me where they are unfounded“
“However, your letter conspicuously fails to address them“
“You also make reference to “numerous factual misstatements” but fail to identify any of them, much less provide documentation to show they are false”
Pg. 2
“I am glad that you plan to “thoroughly examine the accusations” I have made”
“I also eagerly await a substantiative response to the points raised in my letter of 4/20/1995”
After all, can we really take a person seriously, who claimed:
—————————————————————— [8] – 11/2/2012 – “Personally, having pored over Burzynski’s publications … “
—————————————————————— [9] – 5/8/2013 – “I’ve searched Burzynski’s publications … “
—————————————————————— [10] – 6/5/2013 – “ … I do know cancer science”
—————————————————————— Uhhhhhhh … yeah
But do you really know Burzynski’s cancer science when you did NOT even know:
“which genes are targeted by antineoplastons“?
Has “GOraCON” (“Orac” + @Gorskon) even read these ?
—————————————————————— [11] – 10/2003 – Waldbillig R, Burzynski SR. Mechanism of action, uptake, and gene array studies on the antineoplastic agent phenylacetylglutamine (PG) in human glioma cells U-87. Neuro-Oncology. 2003; 5: 309
Volume 5 Issue 4 October 2003
(genes CD38, OASL, and TCF8)
—————————————————————— [12] – 10/2007 – Patil, S., Burzynski, S.R., Mrowczynski, E., Grela, K. Phenylacetylglutamine (PG) and phenylacetate (PN) interact additively to produce detachment-induced apoptosis/anoikis in glioblastoma cells. Neuro-Oncology 2007; 9:482
Volume 9 Issue 4 October 2007
We have conducted a total human gene array screen using the Affymetrix Human Genome plus 2.0 oligonucleotide arrays, for genes regulated by PG and a combination of PG and PN
gene TXNIP was up-regulated almost 5-fold with PG, and almost 120-fold using a combination of PG and PN
genes that are significantly up-regulated are CLDND1, ATF3, CASP5, TP53, TRIB3, and UNC5B
Genes that were down-regulated include AKT2, ASPM, CDCA8
(caspase 5, p53, netrin receptor) and AKT pathway (AKT2, TRB3)
—————————————————————— [13] – 10/2008 – Patil, S., Burzynski, S., Chittur, S., Mrowczynski, E., Grela, K. Antineoplaston AS2-1 affects cell cycle checkpoints, leading to apoptosis in human glioblastoma cells. Neuro-Oncology 2008; 10:786
Volume 10 Issue 5 October 2008
Affymetrix Human Genome
CDCs 25A and 25B, cyclins D3 and E, and CDKs 3, 4, and 6
ORC1L and CDC6
MCMs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and CDC7
cyclins A, B1, and B2, polykinase 1, and CDKs 1 and 2
MAD2L1, BUB1 and CDC20
p21, p53, and GADD45A
p21/CDKN1A, and PPM1A
Based on pathway analysis, it was observed that anti-neoplastons affected the expression of more than 40 genes instrumental in the cell cycle in GBM cells
—————————————————————— [14] – 12/2008 – Patil, S., Burzynski, S., Chittur, S., Mrowczynski, E., Grela, K. The ingredients of antineoplaston AS2-1 down-regulate glycolysis pathways in glioblastoma cells. Neuro-Oncology 2008; 10:1148
Volume 10 Issue 6 December 2008
In 2004 the FDA granted orphan drug designation for antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 for the treatment of brainstem glioma
12 FDA-supervised phase II clinical trials have confirmed anti-tumor efficacy in several types of brain tumors
A total human gene array screen using the Affymetrix Human Genome
The expression of mRNA for vitamin D3 up-regulated protein 1 (VDUP1) was found to be over 100 fold higher for cells treated with PG and PN
succinate dehydrogenase C (SDHC), fumarate hydrogenase (FH), succinate-CoA ligase 1 and 2 (SUCLG1and 2), and aconitase 2 (ACO2)
—————————————————————— [15] – 11/2010 – Patil S, Burzynski SR, Mrowczynski E, Grela K. Targeting MicroRNAs in Glioma Cells with Antineoplastons. Neuro-Oncology 2010; 12, iv10
Volume 12 Supplement 4 November 2010
This study was done using the Dharmacon mRNA profiling array (Thermo Fisher Scientific)
mRNAs 125a-5p and 125a-3p
mRNAs 125a-5p has recently been shown to be regulated by the epidermal growth factor receptor and to function as a tumor suppressor in lung cancer
It has also been shown that the over-expression of mRNA 125a or mRNA 125b caused reduced migration and invasion of SKBR3 breast cancer cells
Using the total human microarray screen (Affymetrix)
AKT2
—————————————————————— [16] – 6/2012 – Sonali, S. Patil, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Emilia Mrowczynski, Krzysztof Grela, Sridar V. Chittur. Phenylacetylglutaminate and Phenylacetate in combination Upregulate VDUP1, cause cell cycle blockade and Apoptosis in U87 Glioblastoma cells. Journal of Cancer Therapy 2012;3:192-200
—————————————————————— [17] – 9/2012 – Patil, S., Burzynski S.R., Mrowczynski, E., Grela, K. P.003. Phenylacetylglutaminate in combination with Phenylbutyrate effectively inhibits growth of brain tumor cell In Vitro. Neuro-Oncology 2012;14(Suppl. 3):iii16
Volume 14 Supplement 3 September 2012
The FDA granted Orphan Drug designation for Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 for the treatment of gliomas, in 2009
12 FDA-supervised Phase II clinical trials have confirmed anti-tumor efficacy in several types of brain tumor
AKT2
PG is not toxic to normal cells whereas PB has dose-limiting neuro-cortical toxicity
—————————————————————— Cancer care: Is the system “in crisis” ?
The Institute of Medicine, just in case you’re like “Orac” and have NOT yet figured it out, “the system” has been “in crisis” since the Gubment“forgot”who they are here to serve
[18] – Gorsi, maybe you can explain to The Institute of Medicine why the Cancer care system is “in crisis” because M.D.’s with Ph.D’s who hold positions “at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center,”are responsible for massive fact-checking #FAILS
What did you do, Gorski ?
Phone It in again ?
====================================== REFERENCES:
====================================== [1] – 9/19/2013 – The Institute of Medicine report on cancer care: Is the system “in crisis” ?
—————————————————————— http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/09/19/the-institute-of-medicine-report-on-cancer-care-is-the-system-in-crisis/
====================================== [2] – 1997 – Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies:
——————————————————————
====================================== [3] – Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski and The Skeptics™ http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence
——————————————————————
====================================== [5] – 9/19/2013 – Another case of the failure of physician regulation endangering patients
—————————————————————— http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/09/19/another-case-of-the-failure-of-physician-regulation-endangering-patients/
====================================== [6] – Critiquing: Dr. Michael A. Friedman, Dr. Mario Sznol, Robert B. Lanman, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, Quality Assurance and Compliance Section, Regulatory Affairs Branch (RAB), Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Division of Cancer Treatment (DCT), National Cancer Center (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies:
——————————————————————
====================================== Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet “fact sheet”:
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Journal of Cancer Therapy, 2012, 3, 192-200
doi:10.4236/jct.2012.33028 Published Online June 2012
5. Acknowledgements
This study was supported by and carried out at the Burzynski research Institute (BRI), Houston TX, USA. The Microarray assay was supported by BRI and carried out at Center for Functional Genomics, University of Albany, NY, USA
====================================== [17] – 9/2012
——————————————————————
====================================== http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/scientific-publications.html
====================================== [18] – Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, quickly realized that David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS is NOT doing something wrong when he LIES about Burzynski:
——————————————————————
“[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it”
====================================== The LIE
====================================== [2] – 6/4/2013 – Gorski LIED:
” … Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons … “
—————————————————————— [3] – 8/7/2013 – I pointed out to Gorski the majority of Burzynski’s publications which explain “which genes are targeted by antineoplastons … “, although there are even more
—————————————————————— [4] – DISCLAIMER: “Because he is still a working academic surgeon and researcher (and hopes to remain so until he retires, which means—hopefully–for another 20 years or possibly even more), Dr. Gorski must emphasize that the opinions expressed in his posts on SBM are his and his alone … “
Gorski might incorrectly assume that his DISCLAIMER is going to allow him to hide like a snake in the grass, but it’s NOT
I have yet to see his admission that he “screwed up”, even though he has claimed:
—————————————————————— [5] – “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine”
—————————————————————— [6] – 11/.2/2012 – “Personally, having pored over Burzynski’s publications … “
—————————————————————— [7] – 5/8/2013 – “I’ve searched Burzynski’s publications … “
—————————————————————— [8] – 5/31/2013 – “Burzynski has a contingent of defenders who have targeted skeptics like me for special abuse, up to and including harassing me at work by calling my university to complain about my online verbiage critical of Burzynski and implying that I am somehow doing something wrong”
“(My university quickly realized that I was not.)”
—————————————————————— [9] – 6/5/2013 – “ … I do know cancer science”
—————————————————————— [10] – 6/7/2013 – “Unlike Mr. Merola, I am indeed very concerned with getting my facts correct”
====================================== An Ethical Conundrum
======================================
To me, the message the institutions that Gorski is affiliated with are sending a message that it’s okay to LIE
and, we hire LIARS
And that’s the position I’m taking until Gorski puts on some Big Boy pants and takes accountability for his actions
Own it, Gorski
====================================== REFERENCES
====================================== [1] – 6/3/2013 – Stanislaw Burzynski: A deceptive propaganda movie versus an upcoming news report
——————————————————————
====================================== “Burzynski hasn’t published anything other than case reports, tiny case series, and unconvincing studies, mostly (at least over the last decade or so) in crappy journals not even indexed on PubMed”
—————————————————————— Gorski’s above statement makes me wonder if PhD’s are handed out to any hack that requests one
Burzynski has published at least 4 publications which list all of the patients and information like:
====================================== [2] 16. 2003 (Pgs. 95-96) data charts
(Pg. 95)
Case
Sex
Age
Date of initial diagnosis
Tumor histology
Tumour location
Tumour size
Previous therapies
Karnofsky performance status
KPS baseline
Date of recurrence (Pg. 96)
Start date
Stop date
Days on treatment
Dosage
Response
Status / date of death
Progression date
Survival time (weeks) from start
Time (weeks) to progression
Last contact
====================================== [9] 17. 2004 (Pgs. 316 + 318-321) data charts
(Pg. 316)
Gender
Age
Tumour histology
Tumour size (total of measured lesions)
Previous therapies
Karnofsky performance status (Pg. 318)
Case
Age at admission
Sex
Ethnicity
Date of initial diagnosis
Pathology code
Visual Pathway Glioma (VPG)
Karnofsky baseline
Previous treatment
Multicentric tumour location (Pg. 319)
” ” (Pg. 320)
Case
Start date
Stop date
Days on treatment
Average dosage (IV treatment / PO treatment) (Pg. 321)
Case
Response
Maximum response date
Time to maximum response (months)
Radiological PD as of 1/03/04
Progression Free Survival (PFS) (year)
Status
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) baseline
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) follow-up
Reason for withdrawal
Survival time from diagnosis (years)
====================================== [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 169 + 171.–.172) data charts
(Pg. 169)
Gender
Tumor type
Tumor spread
Previous therapies
Age
Karnofsky performance status (Pg. 171)
Case
Protocol
Gender
Age at Admission (years)
Ethnicity
Date of Initial Diagnosis
Tumor Type
Tumor Dissemination
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Baseline
Previous treatment (Pg. 172)
Case
Start Date
Stop Date
Days on Treatment
Average Dosage g/kg/d (A10 / AS2-1)
Case
Response
Radiological PD
Progression Free Survival (PFS) (month)
Status
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Baseline
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Follow-up
Reason for Withdrawal
Overall Survival from Diagnosis (OSD) (month)
Overall Survival from Start (OSS) (month)
====================================== [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pgs. 42-45) data charts
(Pg. 42)
Gender
Age
Tumor history
Tumor size at baseline
Previous therapies
Karnofsky Performance Status (Pg. 43)
Case
Protocol
Sex
Age (years)
Date of Initial Diagnosis
Tumor Type
Tumor Dissemination
Recurrence
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Baseline
Previous Treatment (Pg. 44)
Case
Start Date
Stop Date
Days On
Average Dosage g/kg/d (A10 / AS2-1) (Pg. 45)
Case
Response
Radiological PD
Progression Free Survival (PFS) (months)
Status
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Baseline
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Follow-Up
Reason for Withdrawal
Overall Survival from Diagnosis (OSD) (month)
Overall Survival from Start of antineoplaston(OST) (month)
======================================
Maybe Gorski should try “deconstructing” some of these, especially the ones where patients did NOT have chemotherapy or radiation therapy
I’ve even provided a handy reference list
But by George, I’m George Dubya dubious that Gorski can handle it, given his track record
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
1 – Special Exception (SE)
—————————————————————— [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 52)
10 – subgroup
—————————————————————— [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 55)
10 – Japan
—————————————————————— [11] 7. 7/2005 (Pg. 300)
10 – children
—————————————————————— [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 98)
11 – Special Exception (SE)
—————————————————————— [7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
11 – children
4 – children Study (ST)
7 – children Special Exception (SE)
—————————————————————— [1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
12 – children
—————————————————————— [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 91)
1st 12 – Study (ST)
—————————————————————— [4] 4. 9/2004 (Pg. 257)
12
—————————————————————— [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 316)
1st 12 – children
—————————————————————— [15] 10. 6/2008 (Pg. 450)
1st 12 – children
—————————————————————— [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 169 + 176)
13 – children
—————————————————————— [8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
17
—————————————————————— [20] 14. 6/2010 (Pg. ii95)
17
—————————————————————— [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pgs. 40-41 + 46)
18
—————————————————————— [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 50)
19 – children
—————————————————————— [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 55)
19 – Japan
—————————————————————— [14] 8. 10/2006 (Pg. 466)
19
—————————————————————— [16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
20
—————————————————————— [17] 12/2008 (Pg. 1067)
20
—————————————————————— [21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
20
—————————————————————— [5] 2. 10/2004 (Pg. 384)
22
—————————————————————— [6] 3. 10/2004 (Pg. 386)
31 – Special Exception (SE)
—————————————————————— [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
40
—————————————————————— [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
52 – Special Exception SE)
—————————————————————— [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 55)
56 – Japan
—————————————————————— [6] 3. 10/2004 (Pg. 386)
60
—————————————————————— [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 52)
62
—————————————————————— [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 53)
80
—————————————————————— [13] 2006
30 (Pg. 173)
335 – children (Pg. 174)
1652 – adults (Pg. 174)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
1 – evaluable Special Exception (SE)
—————————————————————— [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 91)
1st 10 – evaluable Study (ST)
—————————————————————— [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 52)
10 – evaluable subgroup
—————————————————————— [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 55)
10 – evaluable Japan
—————————————————————— [11] 7. 7/2005 (Pg. 300)
10 – evaluable children
—————————————————————— [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 98)
11 – evaluable Special Exception (SE)
—————————————————————— [7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
11 – evaluable children
4 – evaluable children Study (ST)
7 – evaluable children Special Exception (SE)
—————————————————————— [1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
12 – evaluable children
—————————————————————— [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 316)
1st 12 – evaluable children
—————————————————————— [15] 10. 6/2008 (Pg. 450)
1st 12 – evaluable children
—————————————————————— [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 169 + 176)
13 – evaluable children
—————————————————————— [21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
13 – evaluable
—————————————————————— [8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
17 – evaluable
—————————————————————— [20] 14. 6/2010 (Pg. ii95)
17 – evaluable
—————————————————————— [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 51)
18 – evaluable children
—————————————————————— [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pgs. 40-41 + 46)
18 – evaluable
—————————————————————— [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 55)
19 – evaluable Japan
—————————————————————— [14] 8. 10/2006 (Pg. 466)
19 – evaluable
—————————————————————— [16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
20 – evaluable
—————————————————————— [17] 12/2008 (Pg. 1067)
20 – evaluable
—————————————————————— [5] 2. 10/2004 (Pg. 384)
22 – evaluable
—————————————————————— [6] 3. 10/2004 (Pg. 386)
31 – evaluable Special Exception (SE)
—————————————————————— [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
52 – evaluable Special Exception SE)
—————————————————————— [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 55)
56 – evaluable Japan
—————————————————————— [6] 3. 10/2004 (Pg. 386)
60 – evaluable
—————————————————————— [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 52)
62 – evaluable
—————————————————————— [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 53)
80 – evaluable
—————————————————————— [13] 2006
30 – evaluable (Pg. 173)
335 – children (Pg. 174)
1652 – adults (Pg. 174)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
escalating doses of ANP intravenous injections (IV) and subsequently capsules (po)
—————————————————————— [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 91)
Patients received escalating doses of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 by intravenous bolus injections
—————————————————————— [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 93)
Antineoplaston therapy was administered in gradually escalating doses by intermittent bolus injections 6 times a day using a portable Provider 6000 dual-channel pump (Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, IL, USA)
—————————————————————— [5] 2. 10/2004 (Pg. 384)
ANP was given in escalating doses by intravenous bolus injections
—————————————————————— [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
Gradually escalating doses were administered by intermittent bolus injections 6 times a day using a portable Provider 6000 dual channel pump (Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, IL, USA)
—————————————————————— [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 40)
Antineoplastons A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections, were given in escalating doses by intravenous injections
—————————————————————— [20] 14. 6/2010 (Pg. ii95)
Patients received escalating doses of intravenous A10 and AS2-1 6 times daily
12 or more weeks – ANP
or
at least 4 weeks – ANP but developed progressive disease (PD)
—————————————————————— [21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
Patients received escalating doses of intravenous ANP 6 times daily
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 93)
Dose escalation was necessary to prevent peritumoral oedema
—————————————————————— [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
Gradual dose escalation was necessary to prevent peritumoral oedema
—————————————————————— [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 44)
ANP was given by intravenous injections in escalating doses to prevent peritumoral oedema
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 93)
Treatment consisted of daily intravenous injections of antineoplaston A10 (300 mg / mL) and AS2-1 (80 mg / mL) through a Broviac or equivalent catheter
—————————————————————— [4] 4. 9/2004 (Pgs. 257-260)
he was admitted for administration of intravenous antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 through a subclavian venous catheter by intermittent bolus injections 6 times per day using a portable pump
—————————————————————— [7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
intravenous injection of ANP
—————————————————————— [8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
intravenous infusions of ANP
—————————————————————— [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
300 mg / ML – Daily intravenous injections of A10
—————————————————————— [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
80 mg / ML – Daily intravenous injections of AS2-1
—————————————————————— [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
administered through a subclavian venous catheter
—————————————————————— [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 315)
ANP intravenously initially and subsequently orally
—————————————————————— [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pg. 169)
intravenous infusions of 2 formulations of ANP, A10 and AS2-1
—————————————————————— [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pg. 170)
IV ANP
—————————————————————— [11] 7. 7/2005 (Pg. 300)
ANP was given intravenously daily through a subclavian venous catheter and double channel infusion pump
—————————————————————— [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 42)
Treatment involved daily intravenous injections of A10I and AS2-1
—————————————————————— [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 42)
The injections were administered every 4 hours through a subclavian venous catheter via a dual-channel infusion pump
—————————————————————— [14] 8. 10/2006 (Pg. 466)
ANP was given intravenously daily through a subclavian venous catheter and a double-channel infusion pump
—————————————————————— [15] 10. 6/2008 (Pg. 450)
Treatment consisted of intravenous infusions of antineoplastons (ANP) A10 and AS2-1
—————————————————————— [16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
ANP was administered intravenously daily through a subclavian central venous catheter by a double-channel infusion pump
—————————————————————— [17] 12/2008 (Pg. 1067)
ANP was administered intravenously daily through a subclavian venous catheter via a double-channel infusion pump
—————————————————————— [18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
The patient received intravenous injections of ANP every 4 hours through a subclavian central venous catheter via a double channel infusion pump followed by PO ANP only
—————————————————————— [18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
6/8/2000 – PO ANP
—————————————————————— [18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
IV ANP
—————————————————————— [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
ANP was administered daily through a subclavian venous catheter via a double channel infusion pump
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
Intravenous injections were discontinued after determination of CR, PR, or stable disease (SD)
—————————————————————— [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
After discontinuation of injections, the patients continued A10 and AS2-1 in 0.5g capsules
—————————————————————— [18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
7/8/2004 – discontinued
—————————————————————— [18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
2/1999 – CR
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [5] 2. 10/2004 (Pg. 384)
4.3 months – median duration of administration
—————————————————————— [21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
4.4 months – median duration of treatment
—————————————————————— [14] 8. 10/2006 (Pg. 466)
4 1/2 months – median duration of i.v. ANP
—————————————————————— [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 40)
5 months – median duration of antineoplaston administration
—————————————————————— [8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
5.2 months – administered median
—————————————————————— [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
5.4 months – median duration of treatment (ST)
—————————————————————— [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
5.6 months – median duration of treatment (SE)
—————————————————————— [7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
5.7 months – average duration of ANP
—————————————————————— [16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
5.7 months – median duration of treatment
—————————————————————— [2] 16. 2003 (Pgs. 91 + 96)
6 months – median duration of treatment
—————————————————————— [17] 12/2008 (Pg. 1067)
6.5 months – median duration of treatment
—————————————————————— [1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
9.5 months – median duration of IV ANP
—————————————————————— [11] 7. 7/2005 (Pg. 300)
9 1/2 months – median duration of administration
—————————————————————— [9] 17. 2004 (Pgs. 315 + 320)
16 months (1 year 4 months) average duration of intravenous ANP
—————————————————————— [15] 10. 6/2008 (Pg. 450)
16.5 months – median
—————————————————————— [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 320)
19 months – average duration of oral ANP
—————————————————————— [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 168 + 170)
20 months (1 year 8 months) administered average duration
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
28.6 months – median duration of po ANP
After obtaining at least minor response (SD), the treatment continued with po ANP
—————————————————————— [4] 4. 9/2004 (Pg. 257)
655 consecutive days – administration of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 with the exception of a few short interruptions
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
5.69 g/kg/day – median average dosage of A10
—————————————————————— [17] 12/2008 (Pg. 1067)
5.8 g/kg/day – median average dosages of A10
—————————————————————— [21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
6.0 g/kg/day – median average dosages of A10
—————————————————————— [5] 2. 10/2004 (Pg. 384)
6.37 g/kg/day – average dosage of Antineoplaston A10
—————————————————————— [1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
7.95 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10
—————————————————————— [9] 17. 2004 (Pgs. 315 + 320)
7.95 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10
—————————————————————— [15] 10. 6/2008 (Pg. 450)
8.36 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10
—————————————————————— [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
9.0 g/kg/day – median of average dosages of A10 (ST)
—————————————————————— [14] 8. 10/2006 (Pg. 466)
9.2 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10
—————————————————————— [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 40)
9.22 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10I
—————————————————————— [8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
9.4 g/kg/d – median of average dosages of A10
—————————————————————— [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
9.4 g/kg/day – median of average dosages of A10 (SE)
—————————————————————— [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 168 + 170)
10.30 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10
—————————————————————— [7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
10.6 g/kg/d – median of average dosages of A10
—————————————————————— [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 91)
11.3 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10
—————————————————————— [11] 7. 7/2005 (Pg. 300)
12.16 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10
====================================== [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
5.3-16.1 g/kg/day – dosage of A10
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
0.28 g/kg/d – average dosage of A10 and AS2-1
After obtaining at least minor response (SD), the treatment continued with po ANP
—————————————————————— [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 320)
0.28 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10 and AS2-1
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [4] 4. 9/2004 (Pg. 257)
8.15 g/kg/d – maximum dosage of A10
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
11.3 g/kg/day – average maximum dosage of A10
—————————————————————— [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 42)
13.37 g/kg/day – maximum dosage of A10I (SD = 7.36 g/kg/day)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 93)
20 g/kg/day – highest tolerated or effective dosage of A10 not exceeding
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
331.4 kg – maximum total dose of A10
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [5] 2. 10/2004 (Pg. 384)
0.24 g/kg/day – average dosage of Antineoplaston AS2-1
—————————————————————— [17] 12/2008 (Pg. 1067)
0.24 g/kg/day – median average dosages of AS2-1
—————————————————————— [16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
0.28 g/kg/day – median average dosage of AS2-1
—————————————————————— [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
0.3 g/kg/day – median of average dosages of AS2-1 (ST and SE)
—————————————————————— [21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
0.3 g/kg/day – median average dosages of AS2-1
—————————————————————— [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 40)
0.31 g/kg/day – average dosage of AS2-1
—————————————————————— [14] 8. 10/2006 (Pg. 466)
0.32 g/kg/day – average dosage of AS2-1
—————————————————————— [9] 17. 2004 (Pgs. 315 + 320)
0.33 g/kg/day – average dosage of AS2-1
—————————————————————— [1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
0.34 g/kg/d – average dosage of AS2-1
—————————————————————— [15] 10. 6/2008 (Pg. 450)
0.37 g/kg/day – average dosage of AS2-1
—————————————————————— [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 168 + 170)
0.38 g/kg/day – average dosage of AS2-1
—————————————————————— [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 91)
0.4 g/kg/day – average dosage of AS2-1
—————————————————————— [7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
0.4 g/kg/d – median of average dosages of AS2-1
—————————————————————— [8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
0.4 g/kg/d – median of average dosages of AS2-1
—————————————————————— [11] 7. 7/2005 (Pg. 300)
0.41 g/kg/day – average dosage of AS2-1
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
0.2-0.6 g/kg/day – dosage of AS2-1
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [4] 4. 9/2004 (Pg. 257)
0.35 g/kg/d – maximum dosage of
AS2-1
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
0.4 g/kg/day – average maximum dosage of AS2-1
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 93)
0.4 g/kg/day – highest tolerated or effective dosage of AS2-1 not exceeding
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 42)
0.49 g/kg/day – maximum dosage of AS2-1 (SD = 0.26 g/kg/day)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
23.9 kg – maximum total dose of AS2-1
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
1 / 9% – nonevaluable due to only 4 weeks of treatment and lack of follow-up scans
This patient died while on treatment due to a brain infarct and was counted as a treatment failure
—————————————————————— [7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
1 – nonevaluable
—————————————————————— [9] 17. 2004
1 – nonevaluable due to only receiving 4 weeks of ANP and no follow-up scans
This patient died while receiving ANP due to a nonhemorrhaging brain infarction and was considered a treatment failure (Pg. 320)
(only 4 weeks after initiation of ANP Pg. 321)
(There was no evidence that these were treatment related deaths Pg. 321)
—————————————————————— [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
Patient 2 unable to be evaluated because didn’t have follow-up MRI to determine response
—————————————————————— [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
Patient 11 unable to be evaluated because died of intratumoral hemorrhage and her duration of treatment was too short to short for evaluation of response
—————————————————————— [8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
2 – nonevaluable due to lack of follow-up scans
—————————————————————— [7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
3 Special Exception (SE) – nonevaluable
—————————————————————— [21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
7 – couldn’t be evaluated due to an inadequate duration of treatment and lack of follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans
—————————————————————— [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
12 – not evaluable due to too short a duration of treatment and lack of follow-up MRIs
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 97)
4 – died from the tumour
4 – died from aspiration pneumonia
2 – intratumoral bleeding
—————————————————————— [7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
One CR patient developed recurrence after premature discontinuation of ANP and obtained a 2nd CR after ANP was restarted
This patient who initially had multiple metastases to the brain and spinal cord died due to aspiration pneumonia and was confirmed by autopsy as disease free
—————————————————————— [9] 17. 2004
1 patient who had stable disease discontinued ANP against medical advice and died 4.5 years later (Pgs. 315 + 320)
(There was no evidence that these were treatment related deaths Pg. 321)
—————————————————————— [10] 18. 6/2005
1 patient passed away after 6 years, 10 months from the start of the treatment (3 years after discontinuation of ANP)
The cause of death was recurrent pneumonia, possibly due (Pg. 170)
to chronic immunosuppression from chemotherapy administered prior to ANP (patient 1) (Pg. 172)
—————————————————————— [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 45)
The deaths of 12 patients were most likely tumor related
—————————————————————— [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 45)
There was a single death due to a pulmonary embolism
—————————————————————— [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 45)
2 cases of death possibly resulting from aspiration pneumonia
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 97) The 2 surviving patients weren’t previously treated with chemotherapy and radiation therapy and didn’t develop pneumonia or intratumoral bleeding
—————————————————————— [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pg. 169) 6 hadn’t received prior chemotherapy or radiation
—————————————————————— [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pg. 175) 6 long-term
—————————————————————— [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pgs. 40-41) 6 – didn’t have radiation therapy or chemotherapy
—————————————————————— [16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821) No patients received radiation or chemotherapy before starting ANP, but 6 patients underwent surgery and 14 had biopsy only
—————————————————————— [18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
The tumor was inoperable
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [2] 16. 2003
Patient 3 (Pg. 95)
Patient 8 (Pg. 95)
Case 10 (Pgs. 96-97)
—————————————————————— [3] 1. 3/2004
Case Study, Patient 1 (Pgs. 50-51)
Case Study, Patient 2 (Pgs. 51-52)
Case Study, Patient 3 (Pgs. 53-54)
Case Study, Patient 4 (Pg. 54)
Case Study, Patient 5 (Pg. 55)
—————————————————————— [9] 17. 2004
Case 8 (Pgs. 321-322)
Case 10 (Pgs. 321 + 323)
—————————————————————— [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 172-173)
Patient 4
—————————————————————— [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 173-174)
Patient 11
—————————————————————— [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pgs. 45-46)
Case Report Patient 12
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 94)
Trial design – Fleming
—————————————————————— [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
Trial design – Fleming
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
====================================== Gorski has claimed:
====================================== 6/7/2013 “Unlike Mr. Merola, I am indeed very concerned with getting my facts correct”
—————————————————————— http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/07/i-want-my-anp/
====================================== 6/5/2013 “ … I do know cancer science”
—————————————————————— http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/05/odds-and-ends-about-burzynski-clinic/
====================================== 11/2/2012 “Personally, having pored over Burzynski’s publications … “
—————————————————————— http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/02/stanislaw-burzynski-fails-to-save-another-patient/
====================================== 5/8/2013 “I’ve searched Burzynski’s publications … “
—————————————————————— http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/08/eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynskis-secret-weapon-against-the-skeptics-fabio-lanzoni-part-2/
======================================
☆AnthonyJeselnik☆ 🚫GorskonOrac🚫
You tweeted 12:44pm-3/30/13📄
—————————————————————— David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 12:44pm – 30 Mar 13:
—————————————————————— Defend your tweet😅
#Burzynski—
(@FauxSkeptic) May 23, 2013
—————————————————————— David Gorski (@gorskon)
5/23/13, 9:32 AM
——————————————————————
@FauxSkeptic No need to defend my Tweet. The defense is in the link.
—————————————————————— NO, Dr. Gorski, you have NOT “deconstructed his “evidence” in depth before” Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business (Part I) consists of the documentary; as well as the documents on the movie web-site, which you have NOT “deconstructed … in depth before”
(What Gorski did is termed: “cherry-picking”)
Maybe #ScienceBasedMedicine needs to change this
—————————————————————— “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine”
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � References:
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/scientific-publications.html
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Phase II study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
A preliminary report
Neuro-Oncology. 2003; 5: 358
Volume 5 Issue 4 October 2003
====================================== [2] 16. 2003 (Pgs. 91-101)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials
BT-11 – BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
Special exception (SE) to BT-11
DRUGS IN R&D
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma:
a preliminary report
recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
Drugs in R and D
(Drugs in Research and Development) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12718563
Drugs In R and D / Drugs in Research and Development: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
Drugs in R&D 2003;4:91-101
====================================== [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pgs. 47-58)
——————————————————————
Review Articles on Clinical Trials:
INTEGRATIVE CANCER THERAPIES
The Present State of Antineoplaston Research
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2004;3:47-58
Volume 3, No. 1, March 2004
DOI: 10.1177/1534735-403261964
====================================== [4] 4. 9/2004 (Pgs. 257-261)
——————————————————————
Case Reports:
INTEGRATIVE CANCER THERAPIES
Special exception (SE) to BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
Long-term survival and complete response of a patient with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioblastoma multiforme
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2004;3:257-261
Volume 3, Number 3 September 2004
====================================== [5] 2. 10/2004 (Pg. 384)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
BT-20 Patients With GLIOBLASTOMA MULTIFORME (GBM)
Phase II study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 384
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Society for Neuro-Oncology Ninth Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 18-21, 2004
====================================== [6] 3. 10/2004 (Pg. 386)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
(DBSG) (Study (ST) and Special Exception (SE))
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Long-term survivals in phase II studies of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 386
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
====================================== [7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
(AT/RT of CNS) (Study (ST) and Special Exception (SE))
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
BT-14 CHILDREN WITH RHABDOID TUMOR OF THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM
Phase II studies of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in children with atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors (AT/RT) of the central nervous system
A preliminary report
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 427
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Eleventh International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts, June 13-16, 2004
====================================== [8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
BT-12 CHILDREN WITH PRIMITIVE NEUROECTODERMAL TUMORS (PNET)
Treatment of primitive neuroectodermal tumors (PNET) with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP)
Preliminary results of phase II studies
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 428
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Eleventh International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology
====================================== [9] 17. 2004 (Pgs. 315-326)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
DRUGS IN R&D
Drugs in R and D
(Drugs in Research and Development)
Pg. 317
BT-13 – children with low-grade astrocytoma
BT-23 – children with visual pathway gliomas
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
A Preliminary Report http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R&D 2004;5(6):315-326 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
====================================== [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 168-177)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
INTEGRATIVE CANCER THERAPIES
BT-12 children with PRIMITIVE NEUROECTODERMAL TUMORS (PNET)
CAN-01 (CAN-1) PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES
Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15911929
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2005;4(2):168-177 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
DOI: 10.1177/1534735405276835 http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/4/2/168.long?view=long&pmid=15911929
Volume 4 Number 2 June 2005
====================================== [11] 7. 7/2005 (Pg. 300)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
Targeted therapy with ANP in children less than 4 years old with inoperable brain stem gliomas. Neuro-Oncology. 2005; 7:300
Volume 7 Issue 3 July 2005
Abstracts from the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology Meeting
====================================== [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pgs. 40-47)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
BT-03
BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (BSG)
BT-18
6. MIXED GLIOMA
ADULT PATIENTS WITH MIXED GLIOMA
“mixed glioma”, a type of primary malignant brain tumor (PMBT)
BT-22
8. CHILDREN WITH PRIMARY MALIGNANT BRAIN TUMORS
CAN-01 (CAN-1)
PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES
Burzynski, S.R., Janicki, T.J., Weaver, R.A., Burzynski, B. Targeted therapy with Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma. Integrative Cancer Therapies 2006;5(1):40-47 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484713
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
DOI: 10.1177/1534735405285380
Volume 8 Issue 4 October 2006
Abstracts for the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO)
====================================== [15] 10. 6/2008 (Pg. 450)
——————————————————————
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Interim Reports on Clinical Trials:
(OPG)
BT-23 – CHILDREN WITH VISUAL PATHWAY GLIOMA
Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in children with optic pathway glioma:
A preliminary report
Neuro-Oncology 2008; 10:450
Volume 10 Issue 3 June 2008
====================================== [16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
——————————————————————
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with newly diagnosed anaplastic astrocytoma:
A preliminary report
Neuro-Oncology 2008; 10:821
Volume 10 Issue 5 October 2008
====================================== [17] 12/2008 (Pg. 1067)
——————————————————————
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 infusions (ANP) in patients with recurrent anaplastic astrocytoma
Neuro-Oncology 2008; 10:1067
Volume 10 Issue 6 December 2008
====================================== [18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
——————————————————————
Case Reports:
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Over a 10-year survival and complete response of a patient with diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma (DBSG) treated with antineoplastons (ANP)
Neuro-Oncology 2009; 11:923
Volume 11 Issue 6 December 2009
====================================== [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
(Study (ST) and Special Exception (SE))
Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in patients with brainstem glioma
Protocol BC-BT-11
Neuro-Oncology 2009, 11:951.
Volume 11 Issue 6 December 2009
Abstracts from the Third Quadrennial Meeting of the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology (WFNO) and the Sixth Meeting of the Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology (ASNO), May 11-14, 2009, Yokohama, Japan
====================================== [20] 14. 6/2010 (Pg. ii95)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinical Trials:
BT-13 – CHILDREN WITH LOW GRADE ASTROCYTOMA
A Phase II Study of Antineoplaston A-10 and AS-1 Injections in children with low-grade astrocytomas
Neuro-Oncology 2010; 12, ii95.
Volume 12 Issue 6 June 2010
Antineoplaston A10 (Atengenal)
Antineoplaston AS2-1 (Astugenal)
====================================== [21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinical Trials:
BT-18 – ADULT PATIENTS WITH MIXED GLIOMA
Preliminary Results of a Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in Adult Patients with Recurrent Mixed Gliomas
====================================== “… because Gorski and others do NOT seem to understand how antineoplastons (ANP) A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) work, I provide the relevant Burzynski publications and page #’s for them to review:
——————————————————————
Gorski, here’s
——————————————————————
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
Drugs in R&D 2003;4:91-101
====================================== [2] 3/2004
——————————————————————
Review Articles on Clinical Trials:
1. 3/2004
The Present State of Antineoplaston Research
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2004;3:47-58
Volume 3, No. 1, March 2004
DOI: 10.1177/1534735-403261964
Volume 3 Number 1 March 2004
====================================== [3] 9/2004
——————————————————————
Case Reports:
4. 9/2004 (Special Exception (SE) to BT-11 Study (ST))
Long-term survival and complete response of a patient with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioblastoma multiforme
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2004;3:257-261
Volume 3, Number 3 September 2004
DOI: 10.1177/1534735404267748
====================================== [4] 10/2004
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
2. 10/2004
Phase II study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 384
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Society for Neuro-Oncology Ninth Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 18-21, 2004
====================================== [5] 10/2004
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
3. 10/2004 (Study (ST) and Special Exception (SE))
Long-term survivals in phase II studies of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 386
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
====================================== [6] 2004
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
17. 2004 (BT-13 and BT-23)
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma :
a preliminary report
DRUGS IN R&D
—————————————————————— http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15563234
——————————————————————
Drugs in R and D
—————————————————————— http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
——————————————————————
(Drugs in Research and Development)
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Neuro-Oncology 2008; 10:1067
Volume 10 Issue 6 December 2008
Abstracts for the Eighth Congress of the European Association for Neuro-Oncology (EANO), Sept. 12-14, 2008, Barcelona, Spain
====================================== [11] 12/2009
——————————————————————
Case Reports:
1. 12/2009 (BT-11 Special Exception (SE))
Over a 10-year survival and complete response of a patient with diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma (DBSG) treated with antineoplastons (ANP).
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Neuro-Oncology 2009; 11:923.
Volume 11 Issue 6 December 2009
Abstracts from the Third Quadrennial Meeting of the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology (WFNO) and the Sixth Meeting of the Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology (ASNO), May 11-14, 2009, Yokohama, Japan
======================================
Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog 